Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the clock, Mr. Speaker in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

D. H. Evans and Company Bill [Lords],

Read the third time, and passed, without amendment.

Reigate Corporation Bill,

As amended, considered; to be read the third time.

Stourport Gas Bill [Lords],

Read a second time, and committed.

Oral Answers to Questions — RAILWAY FACILITIES.

FREIGHT CHARGES.

Mr. ALFRED SHORT: 1.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, seeing that the railway freight charges on imported goods, including agricultural produce, are less than those charged for the transport of British manufactured goods, he will arrange for a revision of these charges?

The MINISTER of RECONSTRUCTION (Sir A. Geddes): I am not clear to what particular charges the hon. Gentleman refers. The railway companies, by Statute, are prohibited from making different charges for similar services as regards home and foreign merchandise. If he will send me details I will at once have the matter looked into.

OMNIBUS AND TRAMWAY FARES.

Mr. SHORT: 2.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been drawn to the increases in omnibus and tramway fares in the Metropolis; and whether he will consider the advisability, in the interests of the travelling public, of setting up a Committee of Inquiry to consider this matter?

Sir A. GEDDES: My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, within whose jurisdiction the matter falls, is making inquiries in regard to omnibus fares in the Metropolis. As regards tramways, it is necessary for any undertaking desiring to raise fares above the statutory maxima to apply to the Board of Trade under the Statutory Undertakings (Increase of Charges) Act, 1918. Notice has to be given of the application, and parties interested have the opportunity to object. In a recent case affecting the Metropolitan area over twenty local authorities were represented at a meeting to consider certain proposals, they had full opportunity of investigating the position of the undertaking, and they agreed that a case for an increase was made out. Where an undertaking, as in another recent instance, increases fares but without exceeding the maxima authorised by Parliament, no case for inquiry would appear to arise.

SEASON-TICKET HOLDERS.

Mr. DENNIS HERBERT: 3.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether it is by order of the Railway Executive that railway companies now insist upon payment in full of fares by season-ticket holders when, owing to inadvertence, they are unable to produce their season tickets, and decline to refund the amount on subsequent production of the season ticket; and, if so, whether he will now arrange to allow the railway companies to revert to their former practice of not exacting a second payment when satisfied of the good faith of the traveller or of refunding the second payment on subsequent production of the ticket?

Sir A. GEDDES: Instructions were issued by the Railway Executive Committee at the end of 1916 to the effect that season-ticket holders when unable to produce their tickets should be called upon to pay the full ordinary fare. The objects of these instructions were (1) to check fraud, (2) to enable economy in the staffs of the railway companies to be effected. I can assure the hon. Member that the provision of a staff to deal with applications for the refund of fares from passengers claiming to be season-ticket holders but unable to produce their tickets on demand would be an expensive concession to meet a grievance of this nature. I would remind him that one of the con-
ditions on which season tickets are issued is that they shall be produced on demand or the full ordinary fare be paid.

Mr. HERBERT: Does not the right hon. Gentleman recognise that this leads to very considerable irritation and that the correspondence necessary in dealing with dissatisfied season-ticket holders is probably greater than that entailed by repayment of the money?

Sir A. GEDDES: The obvious remedy is to avoid the irritation by carrying the ticket.

Colonel THORNE: Hear, hear; that comes of having so many suits of clothes!

WORKMEN'S CARS.

Mr. SHORT: 8.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the provisions relating to the running of workmen's cars require alteration in many places where the one-break system of work has been instituted; whether he has received any representations from the 2,000 employés of Messrs. Peter Brotherhood, Limited, Peterborough, asking that steps shall be taken that two workmen's cars shall be run before 8 a.m. instead of 7 a.m., that two should be run between 12 noon and 2 p.m. in order that the workmen may be able to get home for dinner, and that at least two cars should be run after 5.30 p.m.; and whether he can take any action in this matter?

Sir A. GEDDES: Yes, Sir. We have received representations regarding this matter from the hon. and gallant Member for the Peterborough division and from employés of Messrs. Peter Brotherhood, Limited, and the Board of Trade has already communicated with the Peterborough Electric Traction Company on the subject. The company replied that workmen's fares are issued for all cars before 8 a.m., between 1 p.m. and 2 p.m. and between 5 p.m. and 6 p.m. It is hoped these arrangements will prove satisfactory.

SOLDIERS' RELATIVES.

Major HURST: 9.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in cases where near relatives of fallen soldiers travel over English railways on their way to visit graves overseas, he can make some reduction in railway fares, having regard to the high cost of such journeys both at home and abroad?

Sir A. GEDDES: Such a concession would obviously be difficult to arrange from an administrative point of view. I am, however, in consultation with the Railway Executive Committee, with a view I to ascertaining whether it may be possible to meet my hon. and gallant Friend's suggestion.

Lieutenant-Commander KENWORTHY: Has the question of providing free passes for the parents been considered?

Sir A. GEDDES: That would not fall within the functions of the Board of Trade; that would be a matter for the War Office.

OVERCROWDING.

Colonel THORNE: 14.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will make representations to the manager of the Midland Railway Company with a view to running more trains from Barking to Fenchurch Street, with a view to relieving the overcrowding which takes place on the District Railway?

Sir A. GEDDES: I am asking the Midland Railway Company whether any steps could be taken in the direction suggested, and I will write to the hon. and gallant. Gentleman on receipt of their reply.

Oral Answers to Questions — LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL TRAMWAYS.

Mr. JESSON: 6.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that owing to the increase in fares on the London County Council tramways the public are now paying 33 per cent. more for travelling in their own tramcars than is charged for riding the same distances over the same routes by the privately-owned, motor omnibuses; and if he will institute an inquiry into this matter?

Sir A. GEDDES: I am not aware of any instances where the fares on the London County Council tramways are 33 per cent. more than the fares on the motor 'buses over the same routes, though no doubt there may be some cases in which the difference exists. The London County Council have not asked for authority to charge fares on their tramways in excess of the statutory maxima, and unless the fares charged exceed the legal maxima there would not seem to be sufficient grounds for an inquiry.

Mr. JESSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman make inquiries in regard to the route, Westminster to East Hill?

Sir A. GEDDES: Certainly; I will be very pleased to do so.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL (PROFITS).

Major NEWMAN: 10.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether the average profit per ton on coal for the quarter ending September, 1918, was 3s. 6.7d.; whether he will say how much of this sum was retained for the nation by way of excess profit; whether this average profit was obtained by a profit on export sales of 10s. 0.38d. per ton, and on inland sales of 1s. 6.57d. per ton; whether it is expected that the profit on export sales will remain at the present figure; and, if not, will he estimate the further cost to the taxpayer in the running of the coal industry under Government control for the current financial year?

Sir A. GEDDES: The figures given by the hon. and gallant Member are, I believe, correct. I am afraid I cannot say how much of the profit on coal for the quarter ended September, 1918, was retained by the State as excess profit, nor can I forecast the trend of prices during the current year.

Oral Answers to Questions — COASTING TRADE.

Sir ARTHUR FELL: 11.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if his attention has been drawn to the serious position of the coasting trade of this country, which is not in a position to resume business owing to the great increase in wages and costs, whilst the railways running in competition have not raised their freight charges to any appreciable extent; that, under these conditions, the steamers on the East Coast route cannot resume trade against the subsidised railway freights; and what action the Government will take?

Sir A. GEDDES: I am aware that it is represented that the coasting trade is placed in a difficulty through no general increase having been made in the rates for carrying goods by rail and that the coasting trade cannot reduce their freight charges to the level of the railway rates. The question how this position can best
be met is difficult to solve. It is part of the transportation problem which has made the establishment of a Ministry of Ways and Communications urgent.

Sir A. FELL: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that there will be no steamers running on the East Coast of England where they frequently used to run before the War. Unless something is done the present position must go on, and there will be no competition at all with the railways?

Sir A. GEDDES: The Government are fully aware of the very great difficulties which have arisen in connection with the coasting traffic. These matters are very complex, and very much interlocked with other problems, and it is not possible to announce in any brief statement what is the best thing to do.

Oral Answers to Questions — BOARD OF TRADE (MARINE DEPARTMENT EXAMINATIONS).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 12.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if, before framing the amended instructions to examiners in respect of the examination of masters, mates, and engineers providing that a wireless operator's sea service may be counted as qualifying as to one quarter of the service up to twelve months towards the necessary period required by candidates for a certificate as navigating officer, the supplementary regulations had been submitted to the Merchant Shipping Advisory Committee of the Board of Trade or to any of the representative organisations of shipmasters and officers; if not, on whose advice did the Marine Department act in making this provision; and if the same privilege will be granted to other members of ships' crews such as engineers, cooks, and stewards, or the clerical staff?

Sir A. GEDDES: The Supplementary Regulations referred to were made by the Board of Trade after consultation with their professional advisers but were not submitted to the Merchant Shipping Advisory Committee or to any of the organisations of shipmasters and officers. Some privileges are already accorded to other members of ships' crews, who have served as carpenters, sailmakers and cooks, and who desire to become candidates for certificates as navigating officers. It is
not, however, proposed to grant them the same privilege as that accorded to wireless operators.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA.

CURRENCY ISSUE.

Mr. STEWART: 15 and 16.
asked the Secretary of State for India (1) whether he will state the amount of paper money now issued by the Indian Government; if he will say how much of the issue is in notes under the denomination of Rs. 10;whether there is any considerable circulation of rupee notes outside of India owing to military operations in Africa, Mesopotamia, and elsewhere; (2) whether he will state the amount of specie held by the Indian Government against its note issue; and will he state the amount of gold and of silver imported into India from 4th August, 1914, to the present time?

The SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Montagu): I will circulate in the Official Report the figures for which my hon. Friend asks.

The figures referred to are as follow:—

No. 15.—The gross circulation of currency notes was 15,372 lakhs on 30th April last. On 31st March last the value of notes under the denomination of Rs. 10 was as follows:—

lakhs.


Rs. 5 notes
929½


Rs. 2½ notes
184½


Rs. 1 notes
l,050½


Total
2,164½


The value of notes dispatched to Mesopotamia is Rs. 1,512 lakhs. Fifty-one lakhs of one rupee notes have been put in circulation in British East Africa.

Question 16.—Gold and silver held in the Paper Currency Reserve on the 30th April last was as follows:—

lakhs.


Silver coin
1,801


Silver bullion in India
1,673


Silver bullion in transit
285


Silver total
3,759


Gold coin and bullion in India
1,455


Gold coin and bullion in transit
300


Gold total
1,755

2. The net amount of gold and silver imported during the period named, was:—

Gold
£21,400,000


Silver
516,202,000 st. oz.

Mr. STEWART: If the balance of trade during the coming season is in favour of India, how does the right hon. Gentleman propose to meet that balance?

Mr. MONTAGU: That would require a dissertation on currency, which I am not prepared to give in answer to a question.

CONSTITUTIONAL REFORMS.

Sir J. D. REES: 17.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether since the signature of the Armistice there has been any change in the policy or attitude of the Government of India or of His Majesty's Government in respect of constitutional reforms in India, or in respect of any other important matter arising out of or connected with the pronouncement he made on behalf of His Majesty's Government on 20th August, 1917?

Mr. MONTAGU: None whatever.

PASSAGES TO ENGLAND (CERTIFICATES).

Colonel YATE: 18.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether A2 priority certificates for passages from India to England are only issued by the Government of India to those proceeding home on urgent Government work; whether he can state what the Government work is on which deputations of Indians to agitate in favour of the proposed Indian reform scheme have been granted these A2 priority certificates; and what is the urgency of it?

Mr. MONTAGU: I believe it is not the case that A2 priority certificates for passages are granted only to persons proceeding to this country on urgent Government work. With regard to the second part of the question, I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the answer given by me to his question of the 7th May on the same subject.

MAIL STEAMERS (ACCOMMODATION).

Colonel YATE: 19.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that in the mail steamer lately arrived from India, sick British ladies and children were put in the third-class quarters down below, and that first-class cabins were given to certain deputations of Indians coming to England to agitate on the sub-
ject of the proposed Indian reform scheme, and that two of the children died on the voyage; and, considering the danger to life of sick Europeans in the heat of the Red Sea in the hold of a ship at this season of the year, he will instruct the Gov-season of the year, he will instruct the Gov-to provide proper passenger accommodation for sick ladies and children before granting priority certificates to men in good health?

Mr. MONTAGU: The reference presumably is to the s.s. "Ormonde." Among the 347 first-class passengers, there were only six Indians. There were 607 second and third-class passengers. I am informed that the third-class accommodation on the vessel was exceptionally good, and special efforts were made by the company to secure the comfort of the passengers. The company undertook that they should have the same mess and the use of the same deck as the second-class passengers, and their cabins were fitted with electric fans. I regret that two children should have died on the voyage from pneumonia.

Colonel YATE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the third-class saloon was a perfect furnace and pandemonium, and that the second-class had more passengers than the first and was only a quarter or one-fifth the size of the first, and that there was great discomfort and trouble?

Mr. MONTAGU: I regret there must have been very considerable discomfort on a very full steamer, but I do not know what my hon. Friend has in mind. Third-class passengers, I am afraid, will not pay the price for accommodation as first-class passengers.

Colonel YATE: It is not a question of paying the price, but of getting home to save their lives, and here are Indian agitators in first-class cabins while poor men and women and children are trying to get home and cannot?

Mr. MONTAGU: There were passengers who were well in all three classes. We have been making every kind of effort to get sufficient accommodation for the people who want to travel backwards and forwards from India, and I am given to understand that the Government of India is satisfied with the amount of accommodation available.

Colonel YATE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that A passages are only
given for cases of urgency, B passages for less urgent cases, and C for lesser urgent cases still, and here are first-class passages given to Indian agitators when there were women and children in the third-class quarters down below?

Mr. MONTAGU: What my hon. and gallant Friend has in mind is that he does not regard the passage of Indian constitutional reforms through this House as urgently as I do.

AFGHAN FRONTIER.

Sir J. D. REES: 20.
asked whether there have been any developments upon the Afghan frontier as to which the House should be informed?

Mr. MONTAGU: I shall continue to issue communiqués as information is received.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH MUSICAL PROFESSION.

Mr. JESSON: 7.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that before the War the British musical profession was overcrowded with Germans, Austrians, and other foreign musicians; that during the War, when British musicians were called up to serve their country, many of their places were taken by Dutchmen, foreign Jews, and latterly by Russian musicians, and now that British musicians are being demobilised they are experiencing difficulty in obtaining their old situations again, owing to the fact that a large number of Dutchmen and men and women of other nationalities are occupying those positions; and whether he can take any steps to see that all Britishers are reinstated in employment before those of other nationalities are allowed to be employed in this country?

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Sir R. Horne): I have been asked by my right hon. Friend to reply to this question. The attention of the Department has not been specifically drawn to the matters complained of in the first two parts of the question. So far as the last part of the question is concerned, I hope that employers whose musicians were called up for service in the War will be ready and willing to reinstate as many of them as possible on their demobilisation. I have, however, as the hon. Member will readily appreciate, no power to compel reinstatement. I should be glad to have an opportunity of discussing the matter personally with the hon. Member.

Colonel C. LOWTHER: Could not some short Bill be introduced giving the power to reinstate in their positions the musicians who have been fighting for their country?

Sir R. HORNE: I dare say my hon. and gallant Friend will recognise that that involves very large considerations.

Oral Answers to Questions — VISES (PARIS).

Sir HARRY BRITTAIN: 21.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's Government can see its way to approach the Government of France for the purpose of arranging that the necessary visés now required in Paris by British citizens travelling to this country may be obtained in one office instead of as at present in two buildings miles apart, and thereby save the lengthy delays and great inconvenience now inflicted upon a large section of the travelling public?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Cecil Harmsworth): I understand that a change of procedure has now been decided upon which will remove the inconvenience complained of.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL COMMISSION ON AGRICULTURE.

Mr. CHARLES WHITE: 23.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture when the names of the members of the Royal Commission on Agriculture will be announced; and whether the terms of reference will include the question of nationalising the land in the same manner that the Coal Commission in inquiring into the nationalising of mines, especially in view of the fact that a great deal of agricultural land is now being sold at very high prices to speculators?

Captain REGINALD TERRELL: 29.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture whether he is taking steps to secure the representation on the Royal Commission on Agriculture of farmers, agricultural labourers, smallholders, allotment-holders, landlords, and consumers; whether he will ensure that in all cases, except the last named and the chairman, the nominees shall be directly connected with the land; whether
there will be at least one woman on the Commission; and whether he can now state the name of the chairman?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Sir Arthur Boscawen): The constitution and terms of reference of the Royal Commission on Agriculture will be published at an early date.

Oral Answers to Questions — FARMERS' RENTS.

Mr. CHARLES WHITE: 24.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture whether he is aware that, notwithstanding the provisions of the Corn Production Act, landowners are raising the rent of their farms to the tenants; and whether he intends to take any action in the matter where special cases are brought to his notice, such as are now occurring in Derbyshire on the Ogston estate?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: The Com Production Act does not prevent landowners from raising rents provided that they are not in excess of what could have been obtained if the Act had not been passed. The Board have no information as to the Ogston estate, but they will be glad to consider any case if particulars are supplied to them.

Mr. WHITE: Is the answer just given not directly opposite to the provisions of the Corn Production Act?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: The answer I gave interprets correctly the provisions of the Corn Production Act.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Would it not be more correct to say that the hon. and gallant Gentleman has interpreted correctly the intentions of the present Government?

Lieutenant-Colonel WEIGALL: Is it not a fact that a large number of farmers were paying uneconomic rents before the passing of the Act?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I believe that is perfectly true.

Oral Answers to Questions — ALLOTMENT HOLDERS, EPPING FOREST.

Mr. JOHN JONES: 25.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture if he is aware that the Corporation of the City of London have given notice
that the allotment holders in Epping Forest must vacate their allotments at the end of the present year; and if he will cause inquiries to be made into this matter with a view to an extension of the term of tenancy?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: The Board are aware of the circumstances to which the hon. Member draws attention, and they are already in communication with the Epping Forest Committee of the City Corporation on the matter, with a view to an extension of the term of tenancy.

Oral Answers to Questions — RABIES.

Captain R. TERRELL: 26.
asked what steps he has taken to deal with the outbreak of rabies in animals other than dogs; and what are his latest statistics on the subject?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: Outbreaks of rabies in animals other than dogs are provided for in the Rabies Order of 1919, a copy of which I am sending my hon. Friend. This Order provides for the isolation on the owner's premises of horses, cattle, sheep, and swine which have been exposed to infection, whereas in the case of dogs or cats isolation, where practicable takes place on approved veterinary premises. Moreover, diseased or suspected animals other than dogs or cats are not slaughtered. Up to the 10th instant, 182 outbreaks were recorded at the Board, which included two in pigs, two in bovines, one horse, and one sheep.

Colonel LOWTHER: Would it be possible to make a muzzling Order general, so that people might bring their dogs from one county to another?

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must give notice of that question.

Oral Answers to Questions — CENTRAL AND DISTRICT WAGES BOARDS.

Captain TERRELL: 27.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture whether his attention has been called to the fact that the representatives of agricultural labourers on the central and district wages boards are in many cases not agricultural labourers or in touch with agricultural pursuits; and
whether in the case of any future appointments he will ensure that this condition is fulfilled?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: Two-thirds of the representatives of workers on the agricultural wages boards are or have been agricultural labourers, and the remainder are all in touch with agricultural pursuits and represent organised agricultural workers. The Board have no knowledge as to the occupation of the labour representatives on the district committees prior to their becoming members of these committees. I will bear in mind the suggestion in the latter part of my hon. Friend's question.

Oral Answers to Questions — RABBITS (RIGHT TO SHOOT).

Captain TERRELL: 28.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture whether his attention has been called to any cases where landlords are notifying tenants that they have no right to shoot rabbits; whether this is in accordance with the Ground Game Act; and, if so, whether he will take steps to introduce legislation to alter the measure?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: No case of such a notification as is referred to in my hon. Friend's question has been brought to the attention of the Board. Such a notification would not affect the rights of the occupier to kill rabbits under the Ground Game Act.

Oral Answers to Questions — AILSA CRAIG MOTOR COMPANY.

Colonel THORNE: 30.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Munitions if he is aware that in 1916 the Ailsa Craig Motor Company was taken over by the Government, which was in full working order and employing a good number of men; if he is aware that in 1916 the major part of the machinery was taken away to supply the national shell factory for making high explosive shells; if he is aware that up to the present time the machinery has not been replaced, and that in consequence a number of the old employés cannot be found employment and are receiving the unemployment pay; and if he will take action in the matter?

Mr. J. JONES: 32.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary if he is aware that, owing to the action of the Ministry in taking away an amount of machinery from the Ailsa Craig Motor Company, Limited,
Chiswick, it is impossible for them to find work for a large number of employés, and they have had to discharge them in consequence; and if he can make arrangements for the machinery so taken to be restored to the company in order that they may be able to re-engage their old employés?

Mr. ROBERT YOUNG: 33.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary whether he is aware that the Ailsa Craig Motor Company, Chiswick, are unable to start their works, which were taken over by the Department, pending necessary assistance from the Department; and whether, in view of the fact that the firm are therefore unable to employ workmen and thus relieve the present volume of unemployment, steps will be taken at once to enable the firm to reopen their works?

The DEPUTY-MINISTER of MUNITIONS (Mr. Kellaway): An agreement which will allow the company to resume operations in their old factory and re-employ their old workpeople has been prepared. The completion of the agreement is held up pending the receipt of the assent of a few of the creditors of the company who have not yet signified their approval. I am doing everything in my power to expedite the completion of the agreement.

Oral Answers to Questions — CENTROL CONTROL BOARD (LIQUOR TRAFFIC).

Major NEWMAN: 31.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Munitions whether, as head of the Government Department responsible for the activities of the Central Control Board (Liquor Traffic), he is consulted and his sanction obtained before any alteration in the hours of opening and closing of licensed premises are made by the Control Board; and will he state if this and similar regulations are made by the Minister of Munitions under the Defence of the Realm Act or by Order in Council, and when can they be debated?

Mr. KELLAWAY: The Orders in question are made by the Board under the powers conferred upon them in pursuance of the Defence of the Realm Acts. As to the extent of the responsibility of the Minister of Munitions in these matters, I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave on the 8th instant to the hon. and learned Member for York.

Sir J. BUTCHER: Has the Government yet decided what Minister is responsible for the actions of the Control Board?

Mr. KELLAWAY: A question as to the future is being addressed to the Leader of the House to-day.

Major NEWMAN: When can these Orders be debated?

Mr. KELLAWAY: In the past, when these questions have come up, I think the Minister of Munitions has had to answer them.

Major NEWMAN: 49.
asked the Prime Minister whether it is intended to prolong the powers given to the Ministry of Munitions, acting through the Central Control Board (Liquor Traffic), for the period of the War; whether, in order that the modifications and adjustments necessary to suit the conditions of peace may be effected, a new departure will have to be made and a new commission issued; if Parliament will be allowed to have any direct voice in the setting up of this new commission and control of its actions, and when does he contemplate its appointment?

Mr. BONAR LAW (Leader of the House): As I have already stated, this whole subject is now being considered by a Cabinet Committee, and I cannot make any statement at present.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL AIR FORCE (PREMISES).

Brigadier-General CROFT: 34.
asked the First Commissioner of Works whether it is contemplated that certain premises at present occupied by the Central Prisoners of War Fund will be commandeered for the purposes of the Royal Air Force, and whether, having regard to the fact that these buildings are urgently needed for private purposes, he will take immediate steps to prevent such action on the part of the Royal Air Force, and to find quarters of a less extravagant character and less harmful to public interests?

Lieutenant-Colonel Sir J. HOPE: 36.
asked whether the block of buildings at 4, Thurloe Place, South Kensington, recently occupied by the Central Prisoners of War Committee, was offered for sale by tender in January last, and the tender of an Army officer, crippled in the War, was accepted on 15th February, 1919, under
the authority of the Government; whether the building has since been commandeered by the Air Force; and if, in view of these facts, the First Commissioner of Works will consider the justice of surrendering the premises?

The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Sir Alfred Mond): These premises being accommodation for the Royal Air Force, the matter is one for the Secretary of State for Air, to whom these questions should be addressed.

Sir J. HOPE: Does the right hon. Gentleman exercise no control over the commandeering of houses in London?

Sir A. MOND: These premises are for military purposes, and not for civil accommodation. They were commandeered by the War Office, and the matter has nothing to do with my Department in any way.

General CROFT: Was the right hon. Gentleman consulted when the Prisoners of War Department moved into this building?

Sir A. MOND: No, Sir; the War Office commandeered the premises.

Oral Answers to Questions — EX-MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT (WAR MEMORIAL).

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 35.
asked what steps are being taken to raise a memorial in Palace Yard to the twenty Members orex-Members of Parliament who fell in the War; and, if this question is still under consideration, will he see that steps are taken to hasten decisions, in view of the fact that our Parliament gave more names to the roll of honour than any other Parliament in any other country or at any other age?

Sir A. MOND: A memorial to Members and officials of both Houses of Parliament who have fallen in the War is in course of execution by Mr. Bertram McKennal, R.A., and is to be placed in Westminster Hall. This memorial was undertaken at the instance of a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament during the last Parliament, and has received my approval and that of the Lord Great Chamberlain. The secretaries of the Memorial Fund will be glad to furnish any Member with further information if desired.

Mr. BOWERMAN: Is it proposed to place a model of the proposed memorial in the tea room?

Sir A. MOND: I believe that a drawing was at the time placed in the tea room.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Are we to understand that we are not to have this memorial in the Palace Yard?

Sir A. MOND: A committee that went into the matter decided that the Palace Yard would not be a suitable place.

Earl WINTERTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that when the drawing was placed in the tearoom one name was wrongly spelt and one was omitted altogether, and will he see that these mistakes are avoided?

Sir A. MOND: Yes, certainly.

Oral Answers to Questions — NICKEL CARGOES (SEIZURE).

General CROFT: 38.
asked the Secretary to the Admiralty what is the number of vessels that contained nickel cargoes or partial cargoes which were seized during the War; and from what destination their cargoes came and to what ports they were bound?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): I regret that information is not available as regards seizures placed in British Prize Courts overseas or seizures by our Allies, but it has been ascertained from the Admiralty Marshal that nickel was seized on board twelve ships and put in the London Prize Court. Of these twelve cargoeseleven came from New York and one from New Caledonia; and, as regards destination, five of these cargoes were intended for Dutch ports, six for Swedish ports, and one for Antwerp.

General CROFT: Where did these nickel cargoes originate?

Dr. MACNAMARA: New York.

General CROFT: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean that they came originally from the United States?

Dr. MACNAMARA: Eleven from New York and one from New Caledonia.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT (SAILORS).

Sir B. FALLE: 39.
asked the Secretary to the Admiralty if he is aware that men of the Royal Navy serving for pension were given the option of remaining outside the National Insurance Act, and that many who did so now realise that it would be beneficial for them to come under the Act and wish to cancel their previous decisions and be allowed to pay and serve their probationary periods while in the Service on the ground that their decisions were taken without sufficient insurance explanation and advice being given them; and whether he will inquire into the matter?

Dr. MACNAMARA: It is true, as stated by my hon. and gallant Friend, that seamen and marines who have completed the period of their first engagements and re-engaged for pension are given the option of remaining outside the provisions of the National Health Insurance Act, 1911. This option is reserved to them under Section 46, Sub-section (1), of the Act. Every endeavour was made at the time of the Act coming into force, both by the issue of a pamphlet to all ratings and by notices posted on the lower deck, to bring to the notice of all concerned the advantages of immediate insurance as well as the disadvantages, on subsequent reversion to civil life, of refusing to contribute. I confess I do not quite see how my hon. and gallant Friend's proposals can be applied. But I will put the point to the National Health Insurance Commissioners.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH MERCANTILE MARINE (MASTERS AND CHIEF OFFICERS).

Mr. CHADWICK: 40.
asked the Secretary to the Admiralty if there are at present any merchant shipmasters or officers still prevented by the Admiralty from taking charge of any British ship for reasons arising out of their professional conduct at sea during the War; and, if so, whether, having regard to the magnificent conduct of British merchant seamen during the War and in view of the fact that hostilities have now ceased, the Admiralty will remove such restrictions?

Dr. MACNAMARA: I am advised that there are eight masters and one chief officer in respect of whom there are still restrictions imposed by the Admiralty against their taking charge of any British
ship, for reasons arising out of their professional conduct at sea during the War. Whilst recognising fully the magnificent conduct of the British merchant seamen generally during the War, it is not considered desirable to cancel all existing restrictions so long as dangers from mines exist, necessitating implicit obedience on the part of the master to the Orders issued by the Admiralty for the avoidance of such dangers, and so long as the movements of ships of the Mercantile Marine in this respect continue to be under the control of the Admiralty by virtue of the powers conferred upon them by Defence of the Realm Regulation No. 37. Individual cases are, however, considered on their merits on representation, and since the date of the Armistice "bans" or restrictions have been removed in respect of nineteen masters.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY.

ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT.

Mr. ROBERT YOUNG: 41.
asked the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he can make any statement as to the nature of the terms for service which are to be offered to obtain recruits for the engineering department of the Navy?

Dr. MACNAMARA: The terms of service now offered to the ratings in question were published in the Press on Saturday last. My hon. Friend will have noticed how these rates of pay compare with those previously existing.

MESSING ACCOMMODATION AND CONDITIONS.

Mr. R. YOUNG: 42.
asked the Secretary to the Admiralty if any and what steps are being taken to improve the messing accommodation and conditions in His Majesty's ships and depots?

Dr. MACNAMARA: The messing accommodation and conditions in His Majesty's ships and naval depots receive constant attention, and have been much improved during recent years. I may add that amongst the matters in respect of which the welfare committees will be authorised to receive and discuss representations as to service conditions are accommodation and messing and canteen arrangements. I am sending my hon. Friend a copy of the Admiralty Order of 24th February providing for the establishment of these welfare committees.

Oral Answers to Questions — INTERNED GERMAN VESSELS.

Mr. GOULD: 43.
asked the Secretary to the Admiralty the number and gross tonnage of passenger liners and the number and dead-weight tonnage of cargo vessels of German ownership interned abroad prior to the Armistice date, the numbers to include vessels which had been operated by our Allies?

Dr. MACNAMARA: At the time of the Armistice there were fifteen German liners interned abroad with a gross tonnage of 249,754 tons, and 649 German cargo vessels with a gross tonnage of 2,251,439. The dead-weight tonnage of the latter is not immediately available, but can be procured if desired. In addition to the above, 290 German vessels of 591,231 tons were captured at sea by us and the Allies. These figures include ships operated by us or our Allies. If my hon. Friend would wish for further information on this subject generally, I will gladly arrange an interview for him with the proper authorities at the Admiralty.

Mr. GOULD: Might I ask if the large number of vessels referred to by the right hon. Gentleman as cargo ships are not semi-liners?

Dr. MACNAMARA: I cannot say without going into the matter. It may be so.

Oral Answers to Questions — TELEPHONES (LONDON AREA).

Mr. DAWES: 44.
asked the Postmaster-General how many applications for telephones from commercial firms, companies, and private individuals, respectively, in the London area are outstanding, and what is the present average length of time between the making the application and the installation of the telephone?

The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Illingworth): 1,506 orders were outstanding at the end of April. In many other cases applicants have been informed that contracts for telephone service could not be accepted at present for such reasons as shortage of underground wires, or exchange plant, or excessive amount of work involved. I am unable to classify applicants under the heads specified by the hon. Member. The average delay in completing a circuit after the acceptance of a contract is about seventeen days.

Oral Answers to Questions — PHYSICAL TRAINING IN SCHOOLS.

Captain LOSEBY: 47.
asked the Prime Minister if, in view of the alarming state of physical unfitness disclosed by the examination of recruits for the purpose of the War, he will consider the advisability of appointing a Royal Commission to examine the whole question of physical training of children throughout the schools of the country in order that full advantage may be taken of the latest experience upon this subject, and to make recommendations?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I have consulted my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Education and the educational authorities of Scotland and Ireland, and I am informed that they are fully alive to the great importance of taking steps to improve the physical training which is given in schools which, to some extent, has necessarily been curtailed during the War. The Government does not consider that the appointment of a Royal Commission is necessary.

Oral Answers to Questions — NAVAL AND MILITARY OPERATIONS.

SERVING OFFICERS'ACCOUNTS (PUBLICATION).

Earl WINTERTON: 48.
asked the Prime Minister whether it is open to any officer of His Majesty's Army or Navy who has held high military or naval office and who subsequently holds civilian office under the Crown to write and publish his account of naval and military operations during the War; and, if so, whether he will relax the Regulations by which serving officers in either Service are forbidden to publish accounts of operations in order that they may have an opportunity of replying to the strictures of their former chiefs?

Mr. BONAR LAW: As regards the first part of the question, it is not possible, I think, to lay down any general rule in such a matter. As regards the last part, the Government are not prepared to make the changes suggested.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT TELEGRAMS.

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: 50.
asked the Prime Minister, in connection with the ex-
isting delays in the transmission of private telegrams, whether his attention has been called to the fact that 987,807 Government telegrams were dispatched in January of the present year, the last month when actual figures are available, as compared with 43,635 in January, 1914;what classes of Government servants are permitted to and telegrams at the public expense; and what, if any, checks are imposed to secure that Government telegrams are only sent on matters of urgency which cannot be dealt with through the post?

Mr. ILLINGWORTH: From the beginning of the War the growing number of Government telegrams has caused anxiety, and Government Departments have been frequently urged to use the post when telegraphing was not absolutely necessary, and to shorten the texts of all messages. Generally, the certification of free telegrams is limited to permanent Civil servants and commissioned officers, but during the War persons temporarily employed who have been nominated by the several Departments have been allowed to certify. A scrutiny is made in the Post Office of Government telegrams, and those which appear to be irregular are reported to the Departments concerned.

Sir H. CRAIK: Would it not be possible for the right hon. Gentleman to arrange with the public offices that only those in responsible positions at the head of branches of Departments should sanction the sending of telegrams, as was the case until comparatively recent years in all Government Departments?

Mr. ILLINGWORTH: I am afraid, if that were carried out, that the heads of the Departments would be doing nothing else all day.

Sir H. CRAIK: The right hon. Gentleman mistakes my question. I did not say that; I asked whether the heads of particular branches of Departments might not be asked to sanction the sending of these telegrams, as used to be the practice? It did not lead to any unnecessary work in previous days.

Mr. ILLINGWORTH: If the right hon. Gentleman wishes it, I will have it inquired into, but I think the answer will be the same.

HON. MEMBERS: No!

Mr. A. WILLIAMS: Would it not be better if each Department paid for its own telegrams? It would be a natural check.

Mr. ILLINGWORTH: They are debited with the cost of them now.

Mr. TERRELL: Is it not a fact that the Admiralty were the principal offenders?

Mr. ILLINGWORTH: I should want notice of that question.

Oral Answers to Questions — PEACE TERMS.

PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE.

Lieutenant-Colonel Sir SAMUEL HOARE: 51.
asked the Prime Minister in what form the Debate on the Peace terms will take place and at what period in the settlement of the terms?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I am afraid that it is not possible yet to make any definite statement on the subject. The information asked for in the question will be communicated to the House at the earliest possible moment.

Sir S. HOARE: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any indication as to when he is likely to be able to make a statement on the subject?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I am afraid not. It must obviously depend upon circumstances which cannot be foreseen at the moment.

Lieutenant-Colonel A. MURRAY: Will the draft treaty be issued in the form of a White Paper for the convenience of Members?

Mr. BONAR LAW: The question does not arise out of the answer, but the House will understand that it is obviously desirable that the same action should be taken by all the Great Powers in this matter? I have already been in communication with the Prime Minister on the subject, and he is discussing it with the heads of the other Governments to-day.

CELEBRATIONS (MARSHAL FOCH).

Sir H. BRITTAIN: 52.
asked the Prime Minister whether it is the intention of His Majesty's Government to invite Marshal Foch to visit Great Britain in connection with the forthcoming Peace celebrations; and, if so, whether that in-
vitation will be extended to include representative detachments of the various sections of the French Army?

Mr. BONAR LAW: My hon. Friend's suggestion will be considered by the Government.

Sir JOHN BUTCHER: 54.
asked the Prime Minister whether it is the intention of the Government to proclaim a public holiday to be observed in connection with the coming Peace celebrations or whether it will be left to each locality to select a day?

Captain COOTE: 61.
asked the Prime Minister whether it will be part of the forthcoming Peace celebrations that the markets will be closed for three days; and, if so, whether he will consider, in fixing the date of such celebrations, the advisability of avoiding those periods when the fruit harvest is being gathered, in view of the fact that such harvest is perishable and a large portion thereof would be lost by the closing of the markets?

Mr. BONAR LAW: It is proposed shortly to make a statement to both Houses upon the intention of the Government with reference to the proclamation of a public holiday to be observed in connection with the coming Peace celebrations and upon the proposals of the Government on the whole question of Peace celebrations.

Colonel THORNE: Will it be possible to have the Peace celebrations at Whitsuntide, so that the holidays and the celebrations may take place at the same time?

Mr. BONAR LAW: It really must depend on what happens in the course of the next few days or weeks?

Mr. RONALD McNEILL: Is it proposed to hold the Peace celebrations while half Europe is still fighting?

Mr. BONAR LAW: That is a very natural question, but, personally, if the Treaty were concluded with our chief enemies, I should consider it a subject for rejoicing.

GERMAN SHIPS IN AMERICAN PORTS.

Mr. GOULD: 55.
asked the Prime Minister if he is aware of the acquisition of eighty-seven vessels aggregating over 660,000 tons formerly belonging to Germany and interned in American ports
after August, 1914, by the American Government; and whether the consideration given to the German Government was discharge of a debt owing to the American Government of £20,000,000?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I am not aware that the facts are as stated in the question, but am making inquiries on the subject.

CASH PAYMENTS.

Mr. BOTTOMLEY: 62.
asked the Prime Minister whether it is correct to assume from the official summary of the Peace Treaty that the only cash payments to be made by Germany are as follows: that she is to make reparation for damage to persons and property under the seven heads enumerated in the summary, the total obligation in respect of which is to be notified to her not later than 1st May, 1921;that she is to reimburse Belgium by means of bonds falling due in 1926 all sums borrowed by that country from the Allies; that within two years she is to pay the sum of £1,000,000,000 sterling, a further £2,000,000,000 in bonds at varying rates of interest with a sinking fund beginning in 1926, and a further £2,000,000,000 in 5 per Cent. Bonds under terms not yet fixed; and whether these prospective payments, amounting in the aggregate to £5,000,000,000 sterling, are, as to £4,000,000,000, to be spread over a period of thirty years whilst, subject to possible deductions, the first £1,000,000,000 is in respect of the cost of the Army of Occupation and other matters?

Mr. BONAR LAW: The summary made in the first part of the question is, I think, substantially correct. I would point out, however, that the bonds referred to for 5,000 millions are to be delivered as on account of the total obligation, that further issues of bonds may be required subsequently as security, and that the total amount payable in money or other forms of reparation is not limited to the amount of the bonds, but must meet in full all the demands specified in Section VIII. of the official summary of the Treaty published in the Press on the 3rd of May. The deductions also which may be allowed in regard to the first thousand millions would postpone but not diminish the total amount of the payment.

Mr. BOTTOMLEY: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman's considered judgment is that if I were to seek an opportunity of asking leave to move the Adjournment of the House, such a discus-
sion would be prejudicial to the interests of the Peace Conference; and, if so, I table a Motion dealing with the matter, will he give a day for the discussion before it is too late?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I think I may say that all the heads of the Allied Governments take the same view that any discussion of any parts of the Peace terms at present would be undesirable. I shall be, therefore, much obliged if my hon. Friend will not press it. As regards putting a Motion on the Paper, if the circumstances change so as to make it possible for us to permit a discussion without doing harm, I shall be very glad to give a day.

Mr. BOTTOMLEY: I will put a notice on the Paper without prejudice to my light to still ask leave to move the Adjournment.

Mr. GIDEON MURRAY: Will the right hon. Gentleman state whether any official detailed estimate, both in money and in kind has been made of the demands made upon Germany under the Peace terms, including German colonies and shipping; and, if so, what the estimate amounts to?

Mr. BONAR LAW: No official estimate has been made, but the subject has, of course, been discussed, and the amount is very large.

Colonel C. LOWTHER: May I ask whether the sum of £5,000,000,000 is the sum total of the enemy country's obligation?

Mr. BONAR LAW: Oh, no. The answer I gave stated clearly, and it also appears in the summary of the terms, that this is an amount on account, and in no way prejudices our total claims.

Mr. G. MURRAY: Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to give such a statement and publish it for the general information?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I really do not think it would be possible to do it at the present time. Claims are to be made by each of the Allied Powers; they will be subject to revision, and I do not think it would be possible at present to give any estimate of them.

Colonel YATE: Can the right hon. Gentleman state shortly what are the powers we possess to enforce payment of these bonds in years to come?

Mr. BONAR LAW: The powers are contained, I think, in the summary of the Treaty. We shall have, for instance, all our economic weapons, and also, as the House is aware, the occupation of part of Germany for a considerable time.

Oral Answers to Questions — AFFORESTRY (CENTRAL AUTHORITY).

Mr. REMER: 53.
asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware of the dissatisfaction felt at the continued delay in introducing a Bill to establish a central forests authority; and whether he will state the causes of the delay?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I regret that I cannot now add anything to the previous answers on this subject, but I hope to be able to make a definite statement very shortly.

Oral Answers to Questions — IRELAND (SUGGESTED DEBATE ON CONDITION).

Lieutenant-Colonel Lord HENRY CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: 57.
asked the Prime Minister whether he will give a whole day at an early date for the discussion of the condition of Ireland?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I am not prepared to adopt the suggestion in this question.

Oral Answers to Questions — LES ATTAQUES MILITARY PRISON.

Sir F. HALL: 58.
asked the Prime Minister if his attention has been called to the report that has been published in the "Daily Herald" with regard to the conditions obtaining at Les Attaques Military Prison, near Calais; if, as there stated, men are confined in this camp for trival offences such as the overstaying of leave for a few days; if they are supplied with only one blanket each in the coldest weather and are flogged and placed in irons and handcuffs for conversing with each other; and, if there are no grounds for these charges, will he consider as to the taking of criminal proceedings for the publication of such reckless and libellous statements for the purpose of bringing the Army into disrepute?

The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Churchill): My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply. My attention has not
previously been drawn to this matter, but I have called for a report from the General Officer Commanding the British troops in France and Flanders, and I will let my hon. and gallant Friend know the result in due course.

Sir F. HALL: I will repeat the question in a week's time.

Oral Answers to Questions — PREVENTION OF DUMPING BILL.

Mr. GEORGE TERRELL: 59 and 60.
asked the Prime Minister (1) when the Government propose to introduce their Bill for the prevention of dumping; (2) whether he can now declare the policy of the Government for the protection of key industries; and whether legislation will be necessary to give effect to it?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I can add nothing to the previous statements on this subject at present.

Mr. TERRELL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the restriction of imports expires on the 1st September next, and therefore it is very necessary we should have an early declaration of policy?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I quite realise the importance of this, and the last time my hon. Friend put a similar question I said the Government were doing all they could to hasten definite proposals regarding it.

Oral Answers to Questions — DEMOBILISATION.

ASSISTED EMIGRATION.

Mr. ROWLANDS: 63.
asked the Prime Minister whether the Government have yet decided on the conditions under which demobilised soldiers and their dependants who desire to go will be assisted to emigrate to the overseas Dominions?

The UNDERSECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Colonel Amery): I have been asked to answer this question. I would refer the hon. Member to the answers which I gave on the 8th April to the questions of the hon. Members for Devonport and East bourne, in which I indicated the conditions on which His Majesty's Government proposes to grant free passages to ex-Service men and their dependants. I have nothing to add to that statement at present, but a further definition of those who are entitled to the privilege will be published in the Press as soon as possible.

FREE POSTAGE (MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 64.
asked the Lord Privy Seal whether he will consider the granting of free postage for letters concerning demobilisation, grievances of their constituents to Members of Parliament during the continuance of Conscription?

Mr. ILLINGWORTH: My right hon. Friend has asked me to answer this question. As I stated in reply to the hon. Member for Kensington, South Division, on the 9th April, I do not think it would be expedient to make a grant of free postage to Members of either House of Parliament in any form.

APPLICATIONS FOR RELEASE.

Major BREESE: 87.
asked the Secretary of State for War when a decision will become to in reference to an application for release from military service of Private G. H. Faucett, No. 57162, 1st Battalion, Machine Gun Corps, No. 2 Nucleus Company, stationed at Belton Park, Grantham, having regard to the following letters which have been written on the subject to the Secretary to the War Office, and to which no acknowledgment has been received, though repeatedly asked for, since 27th February last, namely, letters dated 15th February, 1919, 24th March, 1919, 8th April, 1919, and 22nd April, 1919; whether this man joined the Royal West Kent Regiment in 1915, was wounded and gassed in France, and was consequently discharged from the Army medically unfit, but again rejoined the Army in the Machine Gun Corps in 1916, and was for a second time gassed in France, and has served continuously in the Army ever since; whether these facts, together with his discharge papers, have been fully disclosed to the War Office since 20th February, 1919;and what explanation he has to offer for the absence of replies to the letters sent and the delay in arriving at a decision?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I am having inquiries made into this ease and will inform my hon. and gallant Friend of the result as soon as possible.

Oral Answers to Questions — SUBMARINE SINKINGS (COMPENSATION FOR FISH-CARRIERS).

Mr. DAWES: 66.
asked the Pensions Minister whether the widow of a master of a fish-carrier, who was drowned at sea
through the torpedoing of his vessel by an enemy submarine is entitled to compensation for her loss notwithstanding that the man was not in Government service?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTER of PENSIONS (Colonel Sir James Craig): In the specific circumstances stated the widow would not be pensionable by the Ministry of Pensions, but she would possibly be entitled to compensation under the Injuries in War (Compensation) Act, 1914. For this she should apply in the first instance to the Admiralty.

Oral Answers to Questions — DISCHARGED SOLDIERS (WORKHOUSE INFIRMARIES).

Mr. CHADWICK: 68.
asked the Pensions Minister whether his attention has been drawn to the statements and correspondence in the "North Western Daily Mail" regarding two discharged soldiers, Private Harold Seaward, regimental No. 334318, 1st Battalion, Lancashire Fusiliers, and Patrick O'Connor, who either are or have been quite recently inmates of the workhouse infirmary, Barrow-in-Furness; and, in view of the strong feeling created locally in regard to this matter, what steps have been taken to provide hospital accommodation other than Poor Law accommodation for men who have served in the forces?

Sir JAMES CRAIG: My right hon. Friend has taken immediate action to investigate this matter, and I will inform the hon. Member of the result.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT MESSENGERS (WAGES).

Mr. SHORT: 70.
asked the Secretary to the Treasury whether there are under consideration any proposals for increasing the wages of Government messengers to the level paid by private employers for similar work; whether the men's representatives have asked for a conference to discuss this matter; and whether he will grant the interview desired with a view to arriving at a settlement of the question?

Mr. BALDWIN (Joint Financial Secretary to the Treasury): The present remuneration of unestablished messengers in
Government Departments was fixed by the Conciliation and Arbitration Board after a full hearing of the claim made by the Workers' Union on their behalf. As the decision of the Board is binding upon both parties, I am not prepared to reopen the matter, but I cannot admit that the rates so fixed compare at all unfavourably with those paid by private employers to messengers engaged on similar duties.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCHOOL PLAYING-FIELDS.

Captain LOSEBY: 71.
asked the President of the Board of Education if he will state the approximate percentage of primary schools throughout the country with adequate playing-fields attached; if school inspectors are instructed to report in every instance where schools are not properly equipped in this respect; and what steps have been taken to meet any deficiency?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr Herbert Fisher): The Board do not require that elementary schools should have playing-fields, as distinguished from ordinary playgrounds, attached to them, and they have no statistics of the number of schools which have such fields. I am quite alive to the importance of playing-fields, and the question of their provision is discussed in paragraphs 14–20 of the Report of the Committee upon School Playgrounds (Cd. 6463 of 1912). There is an increasing tendency amongst local education authorities to provide playing fields for children attending public elementary schools, and I have no doubt that such provision will be accelerated in view of Section 17 of the Education Act, 1918.

Oral Answers to Questions — SMOKE ABATEMENT COMMITTEE.

Sir ARTHUR SHIRLEY BENN: 72.
asked the President of the Local Government Board whether it is proposed to again convene the Local Government Board Departmental Committee upon Smoke Abatement in order that they can complete their inquiries, interrupted in 1914 by the outbreak of war, with a view to reporting whether further legislation is required to secure the abatement of smoke nuisances in the interests of public health and fuel economy?

The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Dr. Addison): The question is under consideration and I propose to consult my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade on the subject.

Oral Answers to Questions — MUNICIPAL ELECTION LITERATURE (POSTAGE).

Mr. JOHN JONES: 74.
asked the President of the Local Government Board whether, in view of the approaching municipal elections, he is prepared to recommend that the candidates for such elections shall be allowed to send through the post free at least one packet of election literature on similar lines to that recently allowed at the General Election so that the drain of election expenses on candidates may be minimised?

Dr. ADDISON: I must refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the question put on the 7th April by the hon. and gallant Member for Plaistow. I will send him a copy of that reply.

Oral Answers to Questions — HALTON CAMP (DISCHARGES).

Mr. ROTHSCHILD: 77.
asked the Under-Secretary of State to the Air Ministry whether his attention has been drawn to the injustice which has been shown to the members of the Building Workers' Industrial Union by Messrs. Matthew and Son at Halton Camp, who have discharged all the members of this union in contradiction to the orders issued by the Air Ministry; whether the contractors have reinstated any members of this union who have left the union to join a craft union; and whether he will at once take steps to remedy this state of affairs and to see that the union affected is treated on equal terms with any other trade union?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Major-General Seely): The step referred to was taken by the contractors following on a recent intimation from the National Board of Conciliation for the Building Trades that the Building Workers' Industrial Union was not a union recognised by that body. The Air Ministry is in consultation with the Ministry of Labour in regard to the possibility of further action being taken under the Conciliation Act, 1896. I am not aware of any such cases of reinstatement of men under notice to leave as are referred to in the
second part of the question. I would add that the contract is now approaching completion, and that as a consequence large numbers of men are necessarily being discharged.

Oral Answers to Questions — GERMAN MERCANTILE SHIPS SURRENDERED.

Mr. GILBERT: 79.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Shipping Controller how many German mercantile ships have been surrendered or handed over to this country; and the total tonnage of all ships and the approximate number of each class of ships?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of SHIPPING (Colonel L. Wilson): The number of German merchant ships delivered for British management up to 9th May is as follows: Twenty-two passenger vessels of 168,800 gross tonnage, approximately; eighty-nine cargo vessels of 663,200 dead-weight, approximately.

Oral Answers to Questions — ARMY OF OCCUPATION (MESSING ARRANGEMENTS).

Mr. HANCOCK: 88.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether soldiers returning from the Army of Occupation on the Rhine complain seriously about the messing arrangements, especially in the districts outside Cologne, affirming these to be worse now than at any stage of the campaign, and declaring that whilst there is waste going on in France our men in the bridge-head regions are restricted to few kinds and small quantities of food; and will he have the matter inquired into?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to a similar question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Frome on Wednesday last. I am sending my hon. Friend a copy of the reply referred to. I am not aware of the serious complaints to which he alludes, but I understand that four complaints from soldiers have been received through their friends at home, and these are now being carefully investigated. Every effort is made to prevent waste whether in France or elsewhere.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRESENTATION OF MEDALS (CONTROVERSIAL SPEECHES).

Major Earl WINTERTON: 89.
asked the Secretary of State for War if his attention
has been called to a speech of a controversial nature made at a recent presentation of the Distinguished Conduct Medal and other medals; and if he will in future insist that at such presentations political and controversial matters are not discussed?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I have read this report of the incident referred to. I agree with my Noble and gallant Friend that controversial topics are unsuited for such occasions. I do not, however, propose to take any special action in this case.

Earl WINTERTON: Can the right hon. Gentleman explain why the Bishop of Winchester was ever entrusted with this most important position, for which he seems peculiarly unfitted?

Mr. CHURCHILL: Ecclesiastical patronage is no function of the Secretary of State for War.

Lieutenant-Colonel W. GUINNESS: Who is allowed to present military medals; and will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of limiting such lists to suitable persons?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I could not say offhand, but I could with notice say who is entitled to present military medals.

Oral Answers to Questions — NEAR EAST (GERMAN AGENTS).

Major Earl WINTERTON: 90.
asked the Secretary of State for War if he has any knowledge of the present whereabouts of Fritz Francke, formerly spy in the service of the 5th Turkish Army in Palestine, and Was muss, formerly a German consul in Southern Persia, who fomented disturbances on a large scale in Southern Persia during the War; and whether, in view of recent events in India and Egypt, and the great influence over natives possessed by these persons, the Intelligence Department is keeping its eye on them?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I understand that the former German consul, Was muss, is at present in the German Legation at Teheran, where he has taken refuge. It is hoped that he will shortly be repatriated. My Noble and gallant Friend may rest assured that the Intelligence Department is doing everything possible as
regards keeping a watchful eye on Was muss. The whereabouts of Fritz Franke are not known in London at present, but General Allen by is well aware of his importance as an enemy agent.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH GRAVES (VISITS OF RELATIVES).

Mr. GILBERT: 91.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether any further decision has been come to by his Department as regards allowing the relatives of men killed in France and Belgium to visit their graves, and if he can make any statement on the subject?

Mr. CHURCHILL: No, Sir. I am not yet in a position to make any statement on this matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURAL WORK (WITHDRAWAL OF SOLDIERS).

Mr. REMER: 93.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware of the position caused by his announcement only to release 10 per cent. of the agricultural companies for agricultural work, and that the whole of these men are urgently required on the land?

Mr. CHURCHILL: The decision to which my hon. Friend refers was arrived at by the Government after careful consideration of both military and agricultural requirements, and I regret I cannot agree to any further extension of the concession in view of the present urgent needs of the Army.

Mr. REMER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there will be great difficulty in regard to the question of agricultural produce during the coming winter unless he makes an alteration?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I believe I am to meet a Committee of Members of this House this afternoon upon this subject. I will take the opportunity of laying the military situation before them in detail.

Mr. HOGGE: Is not the House entitled to that information?

Mr. CHURCHILL: Yes; but it is not in order at the present moment to lay the military situation before them.

Oral Answers to Questions — CONSETT DIVISION (RETURNING OFFICER'S EXPENSES).

Mr. ANEURIN WILLIAMS: 76.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Local Government Board whether he has received the account of the returning officer for the Consett Division of the county of Durham, which was rendered by him to the Clerk to the County Council of Durham on the 23rd January; whether the account included from £80 to £90 for out-of-pocket payments; whether the whole of the account is still unpaid; and, if so, what is the cause of the delay?

Mr. BALDWIN: The returning officer's accounts for the county of Durham, including the Consett Division, have been received in an incomplete state, and are being examined. It is hoped that the accounts will be disposed of early next week. There are certain out-of-pocket payments, in respect of which the returning officer may obtain an advance from the Treasury if he will make an application.

Mr. WILLIAMS: How long have these accounts been in the hands of the Department; and has any communication been made for the further information that is wanted?

Mr. BALDWIN: I could not reply to that without notice. I assume from the answer I have given that communication must have taken place.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Is it not evident that there has been very great delay somewhere, seeing that these accounts were sent by the returning officer on 23rd January, and he has had no payment?

Mr. BALDWIN: It is obvious that there has been delay.

Oral Answers to Questions — WEST AFRICAN CIVIL SERVICE (WAR BONUS).

Mr. HURD: 82.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his recent statement that there have been considerable increases of war bonuses to the West African Civil Service pension scale applies to those who have retired from the service as well as to officers now serving; whether, seeing the shortness of the service which Civil servants can perform on the West Coast, and the disability as to the residence there of wives and children owing to the climate and other conditions, these pensions compare badly with the pensions of British Civil servants
elsewhere; and whether he will make further representations on the subject to the authorities concerned, in order to do justice to this class of retired Civil servants?

Colonel AMERY: I regret if my reply to my lion. Friend's questions on 9th April was not sufficiently explicit. The recent increases of war bonuses to which I referred were on the salaries of officers now serving. No war bonus has been granted to pensioners from the West African Colonies, though the Secretary of State is in communication with the Colonial Governments on the question. The shortness of service in the West African service is compensated for by pensions being calculated at a higher rate—one-fortieth of salary for each year of service, instead of one-sixtieth, which is the general rule in other services.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOOD SUPPLIES.

IRISH BACON.

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: 80.
asked the Minister of Food under what circumstances the export of bacon from Ireland to Great Britain is still prohibited?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of FOOD (Mr. McCurdy): The export of bacon from Ireland to Great Britain is prohibited except under licences issued by the Food Control Committee for Ireland. The object of the prohibition is to ensure that sufficient bacon is available for the Irish home trade, and so far as is consistent with the achievement of that object export licences are being freely issued, except in the case of some curers who have never been in the habit of exporting bacon, and of a few others who have committed breaches of the existing Regulations.

Sir F. HALL: Has the question of the prohibition of Irish bacon anything to do with the large stocks of American bacon of inferior quality that the Government have in hand at the present time?

Mr. McCURDY: No, Sir.

MILK.

Captain Sir BEVILLE STANIER: 81.
asked the Minister of Food whether he can now say if the prices of milk will be controlled for the winter months of 1919 and 1920; and, if so, what will they be?

Mr. McCURDY: No decision has at present been made as to the control of milk prices for the winter months of 1919–1920.

Sir B. STANIER: Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that it is very important that we should get a statement as soon as possible?

Mr. McCURDY: Yes. The matter of milk prices is at the present time the subject of discussion with the producers and others interested.

Oral Answers to Questions — HAMPSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL (DIVISIONAL ROAD SURVEYOR).

Captain ORMSBY-GORE: 75.
asked the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been called to the terms of an advertisement by the Hampshire County Council for a divisional road surveyor, stating that applications will only be received from men at present in charge of roads, which qualification in practice debars all ex-officers and ex-soldiers who were formerly experienced in road work, but who have been serving in the Army during the War from consideration, and limits the choice to men who have not been recently in the fighting forces; and whether he will issue a Circular to all local authorities instructing them not to discriminate in this way against the ex-Service man or men about to be demobilised?

Dr. ADDISON: I have seen the advertisement referred to. I cannot think that the county council had any thought of debarring ex-officers and soldiers who were formerly experienced in road work, and I will communicate with the council on the subject. I believe local authorities generally are fully alive to the importance of taking every opportunity of giving employment to suitable ex-Service men and are eager to do so. Should there appear to be any need for the issue of a general Circular on the subject, I shall be glad to issue one.

Oral Answers to Questions — LOCAL MILITARY TRIBUNALS.

WORK OF NATIONAL IMPORTANCE.

Colonel THORNE: 92.
asked the Secretary of State for War if the Government have considered the advisability of dissolving the local military tribunals; what
position the men are in who were ordered by the local tribunals to obtain work of national importance; if he is aware that a number of demobilised soldiers have been put to do work that was being done by some of the men who were ordered to do work of national importance; whether if they find other employment they will be breaking any of the regulations of the local tribunals; and if he will take action in the matter?

Dr. ADDISON: I have been asked to answer this question. The Military Service Tribunals continue in being so long as the Military Service Acts are in force; their work is, however, suspended. Men who hold exemption on condition that they do work of national importance, if they have changed that occupation, could, however, apply for a renewal, if the circumstances arose. No doubt some demobilised men are doing work formerly done by exempted men, but the fact that the latter can apply for a renewal of their exemption, should circumstances make this necessary, sufficiently safeguards their position. I will send the hon. and gallant Member a copy of the Circular which was issued on this matter after the Armistice.

Oral Answers to Questions — ARMY OFFICERS (BONUS).

Mr. INSKIP: 86.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether the new Army bonus will be paid to officers in hospital; if not, whether the bonus is intended to be an addition to regimental pay; and what are the reasons for withholding it?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Forster): The circumstances under which the first issue of the bonus is affected by an officer being in hospital are fully set out in paragraph 2 of Army Order 84, of which I will send my hon. Friend a copy. All serving officers will receive the bonus from the 1st May.

Oral Answers to Questions — NORTH RUSSIA OPERATIONS.

BRITISH CASUALTIES.

General CROFT: 84.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the proportion of killed to wounded and missing amongst the casualties in Russia; whether this indicates the treatment of British soldiers who
fall into the hands of the Bolsheviks; and whether he can make a statement on the subject?

Mr. CHURCHILL: It is not possible to draw from the proportion of killed to wounded and missing in North Russia any definite conclusions as to the treatment of British soldiers who fall into the hands of the Bolsheviks. The total number involved is so small that comparisons are misleading.

Oral Answers to Questions — LORD FRENCH'S NEWSPAPER ARTICLES.

Mr. INSKIP: 95.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the newspaper articles appearing over the name of Viscount French; whether these articles are published with the sanction of the Army Council; whether the Army Council has any power to restrain such publication; and whether they propose to exercise it?

Captain ORMSBY-GORE: 105 and 106.
asked the Secretary of State for War (1) whether Field-Marshal Viscount French of Ypres is an officer on the active list; whether he is in receipt of any pay or allowances from War Office funds; (2) whether, by paragraph 453 of the King's Regulations governing the conduct of the Army, all officers on the active list and soldiers are forbidden to publish in any form whatever, or communicate directly or indirectly to the Press, his views on military subjects without special authority of the Army Council; and whether, by the express terms of the same paragraph, any information acquired by any officer or soldier while travelling or employed on duty is the property of the War Department and may not be published in the Press without the previous sanction of the Army Council?

Mr. CHURCHILL: Lord French is drawing no pay or allowances from Army funds, and he occupies no military post. He is, it is true, a field-marshal, and in consequence technically upon the active list; but field-marshals in the past, when not employed under the War Office, have allowed themselves, and have been allowed, a very considerable measure of freedom in regard to controversial military matters. Field-Marshal Viscount Wolseley published a memoir of his life
while on the field-marshal list, which severely criticised not only former Governments but the Government of the day. The writings and speeches of Field-Marshal Earl Roberts are also well-known. It is certainly not intended that a field-marshal, although unemployed in a military capacity, should be placed by his rank under any special disadvantage. Such a, rule would convert the highest military honour into an actual disability. The case of an unemployed field-marshal is, therefore, different from that of serving soldiers, and both policy and precedent enjoin that this difference should be recognised. I should add that the Army Council were not consulted in any way before the articles were published.

Captain ORMSBY-GORE: Do not these articles actually infringe the Army Act and also the Official Secrets Act?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I must have notice of a question of law, but I have said that in the application of the Army Act it seems to me proper that a difference should be drawn between serving soldiers and unemployed field-marshals, the rank of field-marshal being the only rank on the active list enjoyed while life lasts.

Colonel YATE: Is not Lord French Commander-in-Chief in Ireland?

Mr. CHURCHILL: That is merely a nominal title. He is not under the War Office in any way.

Oral Answers to Questions — MILITARY OFFENCES (AMNESTY).

Major HURST: 97.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether it is his intention to treat the conclusion of Peace as a fitting occasion on which to grant an amnesty to all soldiers then undergoing imprisonment for purely military offences?

Mr. CHURCHILL: As I stated on Wednesday last, the whole question is receiving careful consideration and I hope to be in a position to make a statement shortly.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL ARMY MEDICAL CORPS.

Mr. G. W. H. JONES: 99.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that Private Lazarus Goldstein, No. 115548, A Company, Royal Army Medical Corps, who joined up on the 28th April, 1917, was relegated to Class W Army
Reserve on the ground of ill-health on the 12th March, 1918, and put on work of national importance at a distance of fifteen miles from his home at a salary of £2 per week, which work he was unable to perform satisfactorily owing to ill-health and was consequently discharged by his employer; whether he is aware that whilst ill at home he was called up for permanent service and ordered to rejoin his depot at Blackburn on the 16th December last; that, as a result of illness, he was unable to so rejoin until the 20th December last and was thereupon charged as an absentee and fined although still ill; whether he is aware that, whilst home on leave, he had to go to Homerton Military Hospital on the 24th January last, where he was detained four weeks and operated upon unsuccessfully for fistula; that he was then sent to Hampstead Military Hospital for further treatment and again operated upon unsuccessfully for fistula on the 16th March last, and that the hospital doctor shortly afterwards recommended him for a medical board; whether his colonel, on his return to Black pool, refused to allow him to go before a medical board and caused him to be classed A and sent to Alders hot for the purpose of being included in a draft for Russia; whether, on arriving at Alders hot, to which he had been so sent without food or pay, he was so ill that the military authorities sent him back to Black pool as being unfit to be included in a draft for Russia; whether on his way back his condition became so bad that he had to break his journey and was conveyed in an ambulance to Bethnal Green Military Hospital, where he still remains; whether he will order Private Lazarus Goldstein to go before a medical board; and whether he proposes to take any, and what, steps in regard to his colonel?

Mr. CHURCHILL: My inquiries in this case are not yet complete, but I will write to my hon. Friend as soon as I am in a position to do so.

Oral Answers to Questions — ARMY AND MATY CANTEEN BOARD.

Major BREESE: 107.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether any decision has yet been reached for the allocation of the accumulated funds of the Army and Navy Canteen Board; and if it is proposed to make grants to associations of ex-Service men to enable immediate progress to be made in the provision of club premises?

Mr. CHURCHILL: The matter is still under consideration.

Mr. HOGGE: Before any decision is arrived at will the right hon. Gentleman communicate particulars to the House of Commons?

Mr. CHURCHILL: No. It is for the Government to make up its mind and state its policy to the House of Commons.

Mr. HOGGE: That is what I am asking, if my right hon. Friend will submit a scheme before the money which has accumulated to this fund can be spent?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I shall make proposals in due course, and I shall carry them out unless I am prevented from doing so by an expression of opinion by the House of Commons.

Colonel WEIGALL: As the matter has been going on for over a year, how soon may we expect a decision will be arrived at?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I do not think the matter has lost by the consideration which has been given to it. I am very anxious to hear the views of the different societies and associations involved, but I quite recognise that the time is now approaching when a definite scheme should be placed before Parliament.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Are soldiers and ex-soldiers being fully consulted as to the disposal of the money?

Mr. CHURCHILL: There are a great many soldiers and ex-soldiers, and I do not know what "fully consulted" would mean.

Oral Answers to Questions — REFUSAL OF LEAVE TO ATTEND FUNERAL.

Colonel THORNE: 114.
asked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that the father of Private F. E. Pearmund, No. 617697, 216th P. O. W. Company'. Escort, British Expeditionary Force, France, died suddenly on Wednesday, 30th April; that his brother asked the War Office authorities to grant Private F. E. Pearmund a few days' leave to attend his father's funeral; that the hon. Member for West Ham also delivered a letter by hand to him on Monday, 5th May, at 11 p.m., asking for leave to be granted to Private Pearmund; that the leave asked for was refused, which prevented the sol-
dier in question from attending his father's funeral; if he can give any reasons why the soldier was refused leave, and if he will take action in the matter?

Mr. CHURCHILL: Every effort is, and always has been, made to secure the presence of soldiers, should it be humanly possible to bring them home, in time to see either a parent or a wife before death supervenes. It has never been the custom to grant special leave solely to enable soldiers to attend the funeral of their parents or other relatives, and I very much regret that the exigencies of the Service do not permit of any exception being made in this respect.

Colonel THORNE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what prevented this man from attending his father's funeral, because the War Office had ample notice to make provision if necessary?

Mr. CHURCHILL: We are not bringing men home from France especially in order to attend funerals. Every effort is made to allow a soldier to reach home before the death of a parent or wife, but we have not found it possible to extend that rule.

Colonel THORNE: On the day the father died did the War Office have notice asking for leave for this man?

Mr. CHURCHILL: That may be true.

Oral Answers to Questions — CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 116.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that the names of 637 conscientious objectors who had served two years' imprisonment and have been recently released from prison on this ground have been collected, and whether he can account for the discrepancy between these figures and the 404 given by Viscount Peel on 3rd April as the official Home Office figures of the conscientious objectors who have been in prison two years or over?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Shortt): The apparent discrepancy is mainly due to the aggregate period qualifying for discharge having been reduced from twenty-four to twenty months. The number of those who
complete twenty months' imprisonment, of course, increases from day to day. Further, the figure of 637 given by the hon. and gallant Member probably includes some prisoners who at the beginning of April were temporarily at large under the Act of 1913 and consequently were not included in Viscount Peel's figure of 464, which appeared in the Official Report as 404.

Oral Answers to Questions — ARMY OF OCCUPATION (WAR BONUS).

Mr. G. W. H. JONES: 96.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether warrant officers, non-commissioned officers, and men enlisted in the Forage Department of the Royal Army Service Corps on A.F. B 2,511a, are entitled to the war bonus of the Army of Occupation; and, if so, whether he will give instructions for the immediate payment of same to them, seeing that so far they have not received any such payment?

Mr. FORSTER: These men are enlisted on special terms and are paid on a civil and not an Army basis. They are consequently not entitled to the bonus provided for the Army of Occupation, but instructions are on the point of being issued granting them a substantial bonus on civilian lines.

Oral Answers to Questions — TEMPORARY ARMY CHAPLAINS (WAR GRATUITY).

Major EDWARD WOOD: 108.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that temporary Army chaplains have now been informed that they are not entitled to receive the war gratuity accorded to other temporary officers under Article 497 of the Pay Warrant; whether this gratuity has in some cases already been paid; and whether, in view of the fact that it was understood by many of these chaplains when they joined up for service that such gratuity would be payable, he will be willing to take steps to reconsider this decision?

Mr. FORSTER: I think my hon. and gallant Friend has been misinformed. A chaplain receives either a gratuity under Article 497 of the Pay Warrant, like the combatant officer, or a gratuity of sixty days' pay per year of service, under a special contract.

Oral Answers to Questions — DISTURBANCES IN IRELAND.

Mr. T. P O'CONNOR (by Private Notice): asked the Attorney-General for Ireland by whose authority a number of soldiers in military motor lorries, armed with rifles and with fixed bayonets, and accompanied by a machine-gun and an armoured car, took possession of the thoroughfares leading to the Mansion House, Dublin, on the afternoon of Friday, 9th May; whether, in addition, a body of police entered the Mansion House on the allegation that they were searching for certain persons who they suspected would be there and for whom a warrant had been issued; and a volley was fired over the heads of a large crowd in the vicinity of the Mansion House?

Mr. SAMUELS: I only received notice of this question at a quarter past one o'clock. I have no information to enable me to answer the hon. Member's questions properly. I immediately communicated by telegraph, but have not received a reply as yet.

Mr. O'CONNOR: I will repeat the question to-morrow.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Sir D. MACLEAN: May I ask what business is likely to be taken on Thursday?

Mr. BONAR LAW: Thursday has been announced as a Supply day, and the Vote will be the Foreign Office.

BILLS PRESENTED.

CHEAP TRAINS BILL,—"to amend the Law relating to Cheap Trains for the working classes," presented by Mr. BOWERMAN; supported by Mr. Crooks, Mr. Jesson, Mr. John Jones, Colonel William Thorne, and Mr. Tyson Wilson; to be read a second time upon Friday, 20th June, and to be printed. [Bill 76.]

HOURS OF EMPLOYMENT BILL,—"to regulate conditions of employment," presented by Lord HENRY Cavendish-Bentinck; supported by Major Hills, Mr. Hancock, Captain Ormsby-Gore, Mr. Betterton, Mr. Devlin, and Mr. Murray MacDonald; to be read a second time upon Friday, and to be printed. [Bill 77.]

SUPPLY (STANDING COMMITTEE C).

Mr. MACMASTER reported from Standing Committee C that they had agreed to the following Resolutions:—

CIVIL SERVICES ESTIMATES, 1919–20.

CLASS I.

1. "That a sum, not exceeding £145,836, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, for the Expenses of Survey of the United Kingdom, and for minor services connected threwith."
2. "That a sum, not exceeding £3,226, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, for the Expenses of maintaining certain Harbours under the Board of Trade and for grants for Harbours."
3. "That a sum, not exceeding £22,000, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, for the Expenses of constructing a new Harbour of Refuge at Peterhead."
4. That a sum, not exceeding £563,950, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, for Rates and Contributions in lieu of Rates, etc., in respect of Government Property, and for Rates on Houses occupied by Representatives of Foreign Powers, and for the Salaries and Expenses of the Rating of Government Property Department and for a Contribution towards the Expenses of the London Fire Brigade."

Resolutions to be reported To-morrow.

Orders of the Day — ACQUISITION OF LAND.

ASSESSMENT OF COMPENSATION [SALARIES].

Order read for resuming adjourned Debate on Question [15th April],

"That this House doth agree with the Committee in the Resolution,
That it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, of salaries or remuneration to official valuers appointed under any Act of the present Session to amend the Law as to the Assessment of Compensation in respect of land acquired compulsorily for public purposes and the costs in proceedings thereon.

Question again proposed.

The PRESIDENT Of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Fisher): When the Attorney-General moved the Financial Resolution on this Bill the right hon. Gentleman (Sir D. Maclean) urged the Government to circulate a White Paper before the question came up again on Report, and the Government acceded to that request. The White Paper was sent to be printed last Friday but owing to delays in printing it is not yet in the hands of hon. Members. I am informed that it will be available at half-past four to-day. I very much regret that this delay has taken place and I hope the House will accept the apology of the Government. I am, however, in a position to state to the House the very few relevant facts and figures which will appear in the White Paper. It is proposed that the valuers to be appointed under the terms of this Bill shall be eight in number, and that they shall receive a salary of £3,000 a year.

Sir D. MACLEAN: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether he proposes to take the Vote to-day in view of the fact which he has just announced that the White Paper will not be available till half-past four? That being so, he is only able to make a preliminary statement for which we are much obliged, but if he proposes to go on with the Vote, seeing that we can only get the White Paper at half-past four, I should strongly object.

Mr. FISHER: I am, of course, in the hands of the House in this matter, and I certainly do not propose that we should take the Report stage of the Resolution if there is any desire for further considera-
tion, but I have already given the House all the facts and figures that are in the White Paper. Under the circumstances if my right hon. Friend objects we will postpone the Report stage.

Colonel WEIGALL: What security do these valuers have? We are told that they are to have a salary of £3,000 a year. For how long are they to have it? They cannot go back to their own work when this is done. What is to be their position?

Mr. FISHER: The terms of the appointment of the valuers will be a matter for discussion on the Bill. All that arises on the Financial Resolution is simply that they are to have a salary of £3,000 a year.

Motion made, and Question "That the Debate be now adjourned"—[Mr. Fisher]—put, and agreed to.

Debate to be resumed To-morrow.

Orders of the Day — PREVENTION OF ANTHRAX [EXPENSES].

Considered in Committee.

[Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That it is expedient to authorise the payment, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, of any expenses that may be incurred by the Secretary of State in carrying out the provisions of any Act of the present Session to control the importation of goods infected or likely to be infected with anthrax, and to provide for the disinfection of any such goods."—[Sir Hamar Greenwood.]

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir Hamar Greenwood): This is a necessary step in carrying through the Prevention of Anthrax Bill, which is a Bill for the prevention of the loathsome disease which affects those who are engaged in our woollen industry. A White Paper has been issued explaining the expenses under the Anthrax Bill by arrangement through the usual channels between the various leaders of the House, and I think, therefore, that I need say nothing further than that the passing of this stage will expedite the passage of the Bill, which is urgently needed to save life in a most important industry.

Sir F. BANBURY: I beg to move, at the end of the Question, to insert the words
provided that such payment in any one year shall not exceed ten thousand pounds.
I doubt whether the passage of this Resolution will expedite the Bill. If you allow all the stages of various Bills to go through that would expedite the passing of Bills, but we are here not to expedite the passing of Bills, but to see that the Bills that are passed are good Bills. The hon. Member says that this stage will result in the payment of certain moneys for a very good object. It would not be in order for me to discuss whether or not the object of the Bill is good or bad, but what I want to know from the hon. Member is how much he proposes to spend. In these days it is very important, even on a good object, to know what it is going to cost you. We have got along very well without this Bill for many years. I do not remember many cases of anthrax during the last twenty years. There have been a few, but I do not know that it is necessary to spend large sums of money in this direction, even if the spending of large sums of money by Government officials ever results in anything except salaries for Government officials. I think we ought to put in some definite sum, and, in my opinion, the sum of £10,000 ought not to be exceeded in one year. I should think that a very good amount to put in. I do not know how much it costs to disinfect goods, or how you are likely to find out that the goods are infected. We ought to have a limitation of the amount to be spent. Therefore, I move that such payment shall not exceed in any one year the sum of £10,000.

Sir D. MACLEAN: I do not know whether the gentleman who drew out this Memorandum on expenditure is gifted with a subtle or broad sense of humour. The Memorandum is simply a Second Heading speech, and really tells us nothing about the expenditure that the country will have to bear as the result of this Bill. This Memorandum differs from the White Paper on the Housing and Town Planning Bill in this respect, that that White Paper was a model of how matters should be brought before the Committee. It gives particulars of what the expenditure is likely to be in one year, and gives the general scope in small compass which will afford us an opportunity of discussing the Resolution on proper lines. But in this Memorandum relating to the anthrax expenses there is nothing about expenditure. The only time it refers to expenditure is the statement that "a special Sub-committee on disinfection estimated that the cost of a station
would be somewhere about £18,000 at pre-war prices." What we want to know is, not what it would cost at pre-war prices but at present prices, and I suggest that unless my hon. Friend can give us that information now, Progress should be reported until we have the information to enable us to discuss it.

4.0 P.M.

Sir H. GREENWOOD: The hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury) has obviously not read the Second Reading Debate when he suggests that we can get on very well without this Bill. He ignores the fact that men have been dying annually from anthrax, and because this Bill has not been introduced.

Sir F. BANBURY: I must ask the hon. Baronet not to misrepresent me. I said there have not been many cases of anthrax, and I did not believe this Bill, or any action of the Government, would stop it, and that I repeat.

Sir H. GREENWOOD: There have been between 300 and 400 cases since 1896, and about 25 per cent. have been fatal. The Committee that considered this question came to the unanimous conclusion that the plan laid down by the Bill itself, for which this money is now asked, would ultimately stamp out this disease. It is obvious that you cannot stamp out a disease without the expenditure of money. I quite appreciate the criticisms of my right hon. Friend opposite (Sir D. Maclean), but it is extremely difficult to give any precise details of expenditure on a matter of this kind. I can only goon the unanimous Report representing all the interests involved, which reported that a station should be set up immediately, and that its pre-war price would be, approximately, £18,000. Now it may be three times that. The criticism that the exact detail of the expenditure is not set out is perfectly fair, but I submit that in a matter of this kind it is criticism that cannot be met except by mere guesswork. Further, I feel the more secure in asking the Committee to give me authority to spend this money because the Committee that has charge of the expenditure was presided over by the Member for South Leeds (Sir William Middlebrook), who for the last few years has spent a great deal of his time in bringing up to its present stage the whole question of anthrax. I hope my right hon. Friend will withdraw further opposition to this particular proposal, though I must say that his criticism is per-
fectly fair, and if it were possible for me to set out in further detail the items of the expenditure I would gladly do so. With that reply I hope the Committee will give me this stage of the Resolution.

Sir D. MACLEAN: I must really call my hon. Friend's attention to the fact that it says that the pre-war price is £18,000, and he says he does no know whether it will be £36,000 or £54,000. With all respect and seriousness, that cannot be the case. Any business man would at once give you an estimate. He would not say, "I cannot tell you; it may be three or four times pre-war price." It is a matter of material and men, and it could be done. If we allow this thing to go through, it will make these proceedings a farce. There must be some definite statement. With every desire to help this Bill, I must really point out no proper answer has geen given to what is admitted to be a proper question.

Sir F. BANBURY: I do not want to misrepresent the hon. Baronet (Sir Hamar Greenwood), but it is a little difficult to hear when an hon. Member speaks with his back to me. I am not in any way casting any blame upon him, but I understand him to say that there have been since 1896 some 300 or 400 cases of anthrax, and that 25 per cent. have been fatal. A very simple calculation will show that during the last twenty-three years there have been an average of about four fatal cases in the year. This is very much to be regretted, but whether a small number of cases like that is justification for passing a Bill giving a blank cheque to the Government and empowering them to erect perhaps another building, something on the plan of the building I passed to-day at Slough, I do not know. The hon. Baronet does not know what it is going to cost. Ami right in thinking there is to be a building? What do they want a building at all for? There are Customs Houses where these goods are to go in. What do you want another building for? The Government have an extraordinary mania for building just at a time when we ought to be using our bricks and mortar for other purposes. What I would like to know is, what are the salaries that are going to be paid before we authorise this payment. Who are going to be employed? There must be some moderate limit fixed before we allow the Government to embark on a large expenditure of money when, on their own showing, during the last twenty-three years the deaths have only amounted to four a year.

Colonel WEIGALL: I do not want to prevent the Government carrying out what I am certain is desirable and necessary, but, from the financial point of view, I feel that the criticism which has been made is justifiable. May I make a suggestion that if we allow £25,000 here and now that the Government will, if they wish to exceed that, have to come again. I see the difficulty of an exact estimate in the conditions that prevail to-day, but, at the same time, for £25,000 a good deal can be done even in the existing conditions.

Lieut.-Colonel Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: The right hon. Gentleman (Sir Donald Maclean) is no doubt right in insisting on playing his favourite rôle and insisting on the strict letter of the law for financial purity's sake, but may I suggest that it is possible to overdo it. This disease is a horrible and disgusting disease, and one which has long baffied scientists; and, supposing it does cost double £15,000, I do not think we ought to boggle over it. My hon Friend opposite says we must look at it from the financial point of view; we ought to look at it from the human point of view.

Sir F. BANBURY: I should be quite willing to accept the suggestion of my hon. and gallant Friend, and substitute "£25,000" for "£10,000," but I think we ought to have a limit. You are not going to cure the evil by wasting money. You will cure it by moderate expenditure, as well as by an immoderate expenditure on building. What I conceive to be the result of all the Government efforts is that money has been spent but nothing has been done. I am perfectly prepared to accept the Amendment of my hon. and gallant Friend, but I do trust the House will put some limit to this vastly increasing expenditure which is going on every day. It is no use the Chancellor of the Exchequer coming down and asking us to be economical, as he did in his Budget speech, if the very first time Members here try to be economical the Government refuse to accept their suggestion. It is the Government who ought to come forward and thank us for having moved an Amendment of this sort, and to prevent and restrain their natural impulses to spend other people's money. I will move to withdraw my Amendment, and will move it in the other form.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Sir F. BANBURY: I beg to move, at the end, to add the words
Provided that such payment in any one year shall not exceed £25,000.

Sir D. MACLEAN: My objection is not the question of limitation at all. So far as I am concerned, I am not bothering whether it is £25,000 or £50,000. I am asking for a simple business thing, and that is, that the Government should comply with what the Leader of the House gave us an undertaking in regard to, and that is, that they should submit a business estimate for the Committee; and this is not a business estimate. If you are going to be human on sensible lines you had better proceed on business lines. The whole House is not going to be swept off its feet by that kind of thing. I am heartily in support of this Bill, but what I want is the ordinary check of any ordinary business man to be applied to this. That being done, my hon. Friend will have no difficulty in regard to the Resolution. He can submit his estimate, and the House will agree to it.

Sir WILLIAM WHIT'LA: I want to enter a protest about the humanity question. In belittling that, you are dealing with a question of human life, and not with a question of the life of dogs. Anyone who has seen a case of anthrax would never forget it. I impress on the House not to tie the hands of the hon. Baronet (Sir Hamar Greenwood) in this matter. It is saving at the spigot and letting out at the bung hole.

Sir H. GREENWOOD: No one appreciates more than I the need for economy. Personally I do not like reflections on the Memorandum drawn up by my Department, but I also appreciate the fact that the House of Commons is entitled to the fullest possible particulars in every detail of any proposed expenditure, and so much impressed am I by this fact that I agree to withdraw this, so that if possible we may submit better details of the proposed expenditure, and I hope that this may be done to-morrow.

Sir D. MACLEAN: You can take it any time you like.

Sir H. GREENWOOD: And that whenever it can be put on the Order Paper it may pass through all its stages. I do not think that the view of the right hon. Baronet that even four deaths in this connection is something that one should
not worry about, or that the House of Commons is going to stick at spending a few thousand pounds to save the lives of people in one of our greatest industries, is one that would find many supporters in this House.

Sir F. BANBURY: I never said anything of the sort.

The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Whitley): Do I understand the hon. Member to move to report Progress?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."

Sir F. BANBURY: As a matter of personal explanation may I say that the hon. Baronet has completely misrepresented me. I never said that we should not spend money to save four lives. I said that I objected, as I still object, to giving the Government a blank cheque on the ground that they can spend any amount of money they like for this particular purpose. I do not think it is going to advantage that purpose, to spend an unlimited sum of money. I have never said that I object to spending money for this purpose, provided that it is a reasonable sum, and that this House exercises the proper control which it is its duty to exercise.

Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again," put, and agreed to.

Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY— [6TH MAY.]

MINISTRY OF FOOD.

Resolution reported,
That a sum, not exceeding £1,451,700, granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, for the salaries and expenses of the Ministry of Food.

Resolution read a second time.

Captain Sir B. STANIER: I beg to move to leave out "£1,451,700," and insert instead thereof "£1,451,600."
I move this reduction in order to inquire from the hon. Member (Mr. McCurdy) if he can give any information regarding the settlement of the milk
question. We know that deputations have been received, especially from the Western districts, and we would like to have some information as to what is about to be done? We would also like to know what has been done in regard to the milk strike in Lancashire? These are important matters which affect a very large section of the community, particularly women and children, and more especially invalids, and I hope that a full statement may be made.

Colonel BURN: I rise to voice a protest against the taking off of 2d. a gallon from the wholesale supply price of milk in the four Southern counties, Devon, Cornwall, Dorset, and Somerset. The reason given for the reduction is that those counties enjoy more sunshine and richer land, and that the milk coming from them, can be sold at 2d. a gallon less than milk produced in other counties of England. If the land is richer and they do get more sunshine, it is paid for in the rent. It is impossible for the Devon and Cornwall farmers to have a price fixed lower than that of their neighbours. How can you differentiate between the north and south side of a road, for instance, and say there is to be a certain price in Devon and Cornwall, and that it is to be 2d. a gallon higher in the next county? The price of cream in those counties is uncontrolled. The reason of the shortage of butter is that cream can be sold at the price it will fetch, and cream is fetching 5s. a lb. in Devonshire. If you want butter, which we all realise is the case, and in order to make 4 lbs. of butter you have got to take 5 lbs. of cream, and butter has to be sold at the controlled price of 2s. 6d., then there is not much encouragement for the farmer to produce butter. Those are matters of great importance for farmers in the South-West of England. I would like to know what is going to be done in order that they may be put on fair terms with farmers in other counties of England, and I would point out that if the butter is wanted, then the price of creammust be fixed, so that farmers may know that, if they make butter, they can get a fair price for it, and that they shall not be allowed to sell the cream at an uncontrolled price.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of FOOD (Mr. McCurdy): I am sorry that I had no notice that these questions were going to be raised, or I would have taken care that the proper officials connected with the Min-
istry of Food, and competent to give full details, would have been present to enable me to give a rather fuller reply to the questions that have been raised. The hon. Member for Salop (Sir B. Stanier) asked me to make some statement as to what decision has been come to on the question of the summer prices for milk. The hon. Member for Torquay (Colonel Burn) asked me to make some statement with regard to the question of milk price in the four South-Western counties, and the price of cream. My right hon. Friend the Food Controller and myself, during the last two or three days, have spent a considerable time in interviewing representatives of the local producers of milk from the four counties in question, and also from other parts of the country. I myself saw a large deputation from the National Farmers' Union, representative of all parts of the country, on Friday last, and we have listened very carefully to the representations that have been made by way of criticism of the prices which were fixed by the Milk Commission Report and adopted by the Food Controller as the prices of milk. On the question whether it is right that differential rates should be established for milk in different parts of the country, I must point out that in times of peace, before there was any food control at all, milk, like all other commodities, followed the ordinary economic rule, and its price varied in different parts of the country with the cost of production, and there is no doubt that before the War the four South-Western counties were exceptionally favoured in this respect, that they did enjoy a longer summer, and there was less need for artificial feeding, and the price of milk has always been at a lower level in those counties, and not only is there a case for differentiation as regards those counties on the ground that cost of production is cheaper there, but we saw representatives of the National Farmers' Union the other day, and while representatives of Devon and Cornwall were pressing upon me the view that whatever else was done there ought to be a flat rate for milk throughout the country, other members of deputations representing Surrey and Sussex were assuring me that in those counties the cost of production has always been higher, and that they had a legitimate right to demand that whatever price was fixed for milk in other places, it ought to be fixed at something higher in their case, to meet the higher cost of production.
So this grievance, which I venture to think is sentimental rather than practical in its character—I will give reasons in a moment—and which is undoubtedly felt keenly by several milk producers in the South-Western counties, is not one such as milk producers in other parts of the country agree with. I have said that the grievance is sentimental rather than practical in character. On the deputation which I saw the other day, although I heard a good many representatives of all the different counties, and a great deal was said on behalf of the four counties against differential rating, and a great deal was said on behalf of some of the other counties in favour of differential rates, there was not one of them that gave any figures to suggest that the price in fact fixed in respect of any county was not a fair price, having regard to the cost of production for the forthcoming season. I pointed that fact out to the deputation when I made my reply. So far as the Food Ministry is concerned we have in this matter acted upon the advice of an expert body which inquired into the cost of production in different parts of the country, and was assisted in so doing by the presence among its members of representatives of the producers, appointed for the purpose by the Agricultural Advisory Council. As I pointed out to a deputation only the other day, if in any of the counties it can be shown to be a fact that new circumstances have arisen which were not taken into consideration by the Milk Commission when they advised the Ministry as to milk prices—

Mr. CAUTLEY: Has the question of wages been taken into account—the increase of 6s. 6d.?

Mr. McCURDY: That was one of the points raised the other day. I think the Travelling Commission did take into account the new charges, and the fact that in some districts wages far in excess of the statutory minimum are now being paid.

Mr. CAUTLEY: I mean the forthcoming increase of 6s. 6d.?

Mr. McCURDY: That was not then made, and, therefore, could not have been taken into account, but it is being taken into account. After the Debate in Committee upon this Vote and after the question had been raised on the floor of this House by the representatives of those counties as to whether the prices fixed for
milk were fair and adequate under the circumstances, my right hon. Friend the Food Controller agreed to refer back to the Milk Commission the question which had been raised in the course of the last few days by representatives both of the four counties referred to and of Lancashire, where some trouble has arisen which has already been referred to. The Commission has taken further evidence with regard to that, and I understand that it will be published now within a few hours.

Sir B. STANIER: Cannot the hon. Gentleman give us that information now?

Mr. McCURDY: I have not got it, and I do not think that even if I had had notice I should have been able to give it; but I think it will be in the hands of the Food Controller within a few hours, and it will be made public as soon as possible. With regard to the price of cream, it was suggested that, having regard to the fact that the price of butter is controlled, it is a mistake on the part of the Food Ministry to allow the sale of cream free from restrictions. That is a matter which was very carefully considered by the Food Council a few weeks ago, when the Order was made, and I think, if I may say so, that it is a mistake to suppose that butter and cream are in practice convertible. It is perfectly true that the making of cream is the first part of the process of making butter, but it does not in the least follow that because a man is prohibited from making cream he will therefore utilise the surplus milk for making butter. They are separate businesses, and it is a question of having a business connection for the disposal of the product. We are arriving at the summer months, when there is a temporary surplus of milk in various parts of the country, and a good deal of it is apt to be wasted during that time. People who have got a surplus quantity of milk have not necessarily the facilities or the business connections which would make it profitable for them to proceed to make, over a very limited period of the year, their surplus milk into butter. On the other hand, there are parts of the country, like Devon and Cornwall, where in normal times the making of cream is a quite separate and lucrative industry, and we see no reason why under those circumstances we should not allow the milk producers of those counties to make cream again during this period. We are not anxious to maintain control any longer than is necessary, and are certainly not
anxious to impose any new controls upon the food of this country unless a real necessity is shown. We therefore allowed the making of cream without imposing any restriction as to price, and we are satisfied, after getting the best advice we could, that the result is not in any way to interfere to any appreciable extent with the production of butter in this country. I would also point out that in practice it would really be impossible for us to put an effective control upon cream, because, as soon as there is a surplus of milk, it is open to wealthy people to purchase as much milk as they desire and to set the milk and skim off the cream for themselves. Having regard to those various considerations, we came to the conclusion that no real case had been made out for imposing control upon the freedom of producer and consumer alike in regard to cream.

Lieutenant-Colonel WEIGALL: I only want to ask one question, because I see that my hon. and gallant Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture is present. I want, if possible, to get from the representatives of the Government a definite assurance as to the position with regard to milk next winter. I feel convinced that neither the Food Controller nor the President of the Board of Agriculture has realised the intimate relationship between summer and winter supplies. When I spoke to the Consumers' Council of the Food Ministry the other day, they appeared to imagine that it was possible to assess the price for a couple of months only. They said, "Why go on and assess a figure for August and September? Let us go month by month"; apparently imagining that the supply could be turned on and off at will. But the whole of the winter milk supply is dependent upon the cows which are now producing milk this summer. The period to be considered is the period of lactation, which, to all intents and purposes, is a year. Who is going to be responsible next winter for the supply of milk to the consumer? Is it to be the Board of Agriculture or the Food Ministry? We are given to understand that the Food Ministry's activities will end early next autumn. I am not speaking from the point of view of the producer or the consumer as such, but from the point of view of the nation as a whole. It is an extremely vital question to the whole of the nation. Is either the Food Minister or the representative of the Board of Agricul-
ture prepared here and now to give a joint and several assurance that the arrangements they are making will ensure to the nation an adequate supply of milk next winter? Before this Debate ends, I hope that one or other of the representatives of those two Departments will give that assurance, because from the nation's point of view that is all that really matters.

Mr. CAUTLEY: I am sorry to have to say that I think the hon. Gentleman's reply was anything but satisfactory. There is one great difficulty in speaking on farming questions, namely, that one cannot generalise for the whole country. Speaking for my own county of Sussex, with which I am intimately acquainted, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the prices fixed for milk by this Commission are below the cost of production. A unanimous resolution to that effect was passed at Lewes last week by the National Farmers' Union. As the hon. Gentleman is aware, farmers in the West Riding of Yorkshire are practically on strike, and those in Lancashire have been on strike, and only desisted at the request of the Agricultural Committee. The four counties in the West of England are entirely dissatisfied and almost on the verge of strike, on account of the prices fixed for them. In spite of all that, the hon. Gentlemen's chief the other day apparently treated the future of the milk supply with levity, or rather with truculence. Is he going to milk the cows himself, or is he going to make them give milk, or put the farmers in prison if they do not milk the cows, or if they do not make them give milk? I would like the Committee really to understand that this matter is serious as regards the supply of milk in the future. The farmers are extremely dissatisfied. I have heard only to-day of farms in Hampshire having been given in right and left. In my county of Sussex we have lost money during the winter, and on the 1st May, when the new Order came in, we had three inches of snow, and in some places four or five inches. The first fortnight of this month has been the most expensive period for milk production that we have ever known. The Army authorities took nearly all the hay, and such little as was left cost us £9 2s. 6d. per ton. while the price for the supply of milk was 1s. 4d. Can it be wondered at that farmers are getting tired of this control and are saying that they will not go on? Now, I gather from the hon. Gen-
tleman that he is not aware whether, in fixing this price, the prospective increase of 6s. 6d. a week in wages was taken into account or not. I understand that it never was taken into account when the Committee fixed these prices, and yet this enormous increase of wages is going to come into operation next week. It not only affects the milkers of the cows, but the cost, of everything that goes towards milk production. Everyone engaged in the industry is to receive increased wages, and it adds to the cost of every item of food produced on the farm that is given to the cows. I wish to impress upon the Committee that we are heading, as far as I can see, for a distinct milk shortage, next winter more particularly. I feel certain that as soon as the Committee realises that it will insist upon the Food Controller or the Board of Agriculture—I do not care which—taking steps to provide some security that we have a proper milk supply. I noticed to-day that a question was asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Sir B. Stanier) as to whether the prices of milk will be fixed for next winter. If the milk is to be obtained, the control must be removed. I do not understand why we do have control now. The number of cows in the country is as many as it was before the War. There was no shortage of milk, under the ordinary laws of supply and demand, before the War, and I believe now that, if the control was withdrawn and we had a free market, the Jaws of supply and demand would ensure a proper milk supply. It is quite true that, owing to the alteration in the rate of wages and the hours of labour, difficulties have been placed upon milk producers in regard to getting men to milk the cows on Saturdays and Sundays, but I believe the arrangement can be made sufficiently elastic to overcome that. But the prices must be altered to meet this increase of wages and to offer more inducement to the farmers to work under the difficulties they now have. I wish to fix the responsibility on the Food Controller for the future, and I want him or his representative to say now that he takes the responsibility for the milk supply of next winter.

Colonel FITZROY: It is not for me to tell the Food Controller how to conduct the duties of his office, but I must offer a word of warning to the hon. Gentleman on the Treasury Bench representing the Food
Controller, and that is to be careful what he does with the milk supply of the country. There is no particular department of the agricultural industry which is so complicated as is milk production; if you frighten farmers who are at present producing milk for the large centres of population you may cause a very dangerous state of affairs to arise. I have had some communications during the last few days with representatives of the National Farmers' Union in Lancashire, where I think they have actually gone on strike at one town, or at any rate have threatened to strike. I very much deprecate the action which they took on that occasion, because I do not think, whatever their grievances might be, they are justified in withholding the supply of milk from the large centres of industry in the North of England, and I hope they will not take that action, but that they will take constitutional methods of getting their grievances redressed. Anyhow, I hope the hon. Gentleman will to-day tell the Food Controller to be very careful what he does in this matter. As far as the agricultural industry is concerned, there is no particular phase of it in which a farmer is engaged in which if he likes he can get out of the whole thing and give up as he can in the milk production part of it. If a man keeps a certain number of cows and supplies milk to some towns close by, he can if he likes sell the whole lot, and the supply ceases, and the only way you can make him keep on his business is to allow him a reasonable return on his undertaking. The hon. Gentleman who preceded me said he could not understand why this particular industry should be controlled, and I do not understand either. It is quite easy to us to see why some of the articles produced on farms have had to be controlled during the War, because for the moment the supply from abroad was cut off, and it is largely the supply from abroad which controls the price in ordinary times, but an article like milk does not compete with foreign supplies. It is all produced in this country, and the ordinary laws of supply and demand tend to keep the price down. If the price went up a lot of people would go into the industry, and, the supply becoming greater than the demand, the price would go down, and although the price might rise for a short time if the Government removed the control of the milk industry, in the very near future I think it would be reduced to its proper level and that there would be no
complaint. I cannot understand why the Food Controller does not publish the Report of the Commission that went about the country to find out the cost of production of milk. If you were to lay all your cards on the table and show the farmers that you had arrived at these prices after proper calculation of the cost of production, if they did have a grievance, at any rate you would have an answer, but at present you have none, because you are keeping them in the dark. Before this report was made by the travelling Milk Production Commission I asked the Food Controller whether he would have the report published when they had finished, and he said he would consider it. But let him consider it afresh and publish the actual report of these Commissioners, so as to show the farmers on what grounds you arrived at the conclusions that you did. If he will do that I am sure he will remove a great deal of the grievance from which they now suffer. I ask him, in conclusion, to represent to the Minister of Food to be very careful indeed as to what he does in regard to the control that he has over the milk supply of this country.

Mr. McCURDY: Several hon. Members have asked that some statement should be made with regard to the policy which the Ministry of Food proposes to adopt for the purpose of ensuring a supply of milk. The hon. Member for East Grinstead (Mr. Cautley) suggested that the best policy would be the entire removal of the control, and I rather understood the hon. and gallant Member for the Daventry Division (Colonel FitzRoy) agreed to some extent with that point of view and thought that if the milk question were left to the operation of the ordinary law of supply and demand the result would be a supply of milk at reasonable prices for the people of this country. I am bound to say that that is not the view of the Ministry of Food. One of the surprising things which we learned when we came to take an accurate stock of the food resources of the country, and scientifically to investigate what those resources were, was the discovery that in times of profound peace this country did not have an adequate milk supply for the physiological needs of its people, that there were whole districts in which the children of the industrial classes saw practically no milk at all, and that if you took the entire milk supply of the country it was not enough if it was divided round with perfect impartiality to
give anything like an adequate supply of mild to every family in this country. And we not only discovered that the milk supply of this country was inadequate in amount, but we discovered also that such as it was it was open to very serious criticism on the ground of quality. The methods by which the milk is collected and distributed are haphazard and unscientific in the extreme, with a multiplicity of changes and of handlings in the course of transit, when every stage and every fresh handling is multiplying the risk and almost the certainty of contamination.

Colonel FITZROY: In asking for no control, I did not mean that there should be no control over distribution.

Mr. McCURDY: I dare say that when we understand one another we often find ourselves in agreement, and it is because my right hon. Friend the Food Controller and previous Food Ministers were so much impressed by the unsatisfactory state of the supply and distribution of milk in times of peace that we certainly desire that before the Ministry of Food finally passes out of being we should, if possible, leave the framework of some policy which would ensure to the consumers of this country a better supply of milk for the future.

Mr. CAUTLEY: Do you suggest that the fixing of prices will increase either the quantity or quality of milk?

Mr. McCURDY: I do, indeed. Unless you can assure the producer of an adequate price, I do not see how you can encourage production, and therefore I can assure my hon. Friend that the fixation of prices is a matter which you can never wholly dismiss once you launch upon any scheme of control which has for its object the maintenance or increase of the supply.

Mr. MOUNT: This is a maximum, and not a minimum price.

Mr. McCURDY: I cannot answer all sorts of questions at once. I said the fixation of prices. The question of the protection of the consumer by the imposition of a maximum price is a totally different question altogether, which is not relevant to the question of encouraging production, and I am answering the suggestion that the proper way to deal with milk is to remove the control altogether, and I am saying that that is not the view of the Ministry of Food. It is, I believe, not the view of the Board of Agriculture or of the Local Government Board. At the present
time, and for some little time past, all these three Departments of the Government have been in consultation, and are considering what will be the best means of assuring a more adequate and better supply of milk, and in what form it will be necessary to take control over the distribution for that purpose. With regard to the Report of the Milk Commissioners, I will convey to my right hon. Friend the representations that have been made and the desires expressed that that Report should be made public as soon as possible.

Lieutenant-Colonel WEIGALL: Can the hon. Gentleman give the House an assurance that an adequate supply of milk will be forthcoming next winter?

Mr. McCURDY: The answer I have given is that the three Departments in question are now considering what policy the Government should adopt to ensure what my hon. and gallant Friend desires.

Mr. MOUNT: I am afraid my hon. Friend did not understand the purport of my interruption. I understood he was trying to show that the object of the Ministry was to encourage the supply of milk because they found that the supply was short. The object of my interruption was to ask how he proposed to increase the quantity of milk produced by fixing a maximum which the producers thought was too low. The object of those who advocate—and I associate myself with that advocacy—the de-control of milk, is that we believe the leaving of milk to the laws of supply and demand will increase the supply. I am sorry I did not hear my hon. Friend say a word in regard to publishing the Report of the travelling Commission, because I think it is a most extraordinary position, and a very difficult position, in which some of us Members are placed when we attempt to defend the action of the Government with regard to their milk policy. We are told that these prices are fixed in consequence of the evidence brought before the Commission and of the Report published by it. We use that argument to those who question us, and we are brought up roundly and asked what is that Report. We think it is only right that we should be allowed to see the Report of the Commission so as to be able to judge for ourselves whether or not, and how far, the prices fixed by the Food Controller are justified. I think it is a most extraordinary position of the Food Ministry to take
up, to think they are going to increase the amount of milk by fixing a maximum price which is insufficient in the view of those who produce the milk.

Amendment negatived.

Resolution agreed to.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY [STANDING COMMITTEE C—1st MAY.]

CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES, 1919–20.

Resolutions reported,
1. "That a sum, not exceeding £55,400, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 3lst day of March, 1920, for Expenditure in respect of Royal Palaces including a Grant in Aid."
2. "That a sum, not exceeding £11,100, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, for Expenditure in respect of Osborne."

Resolutions agreed to.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY [STANDING COMMITTEE C—5th MAY.]

CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES, 1919–20.

Resolution reported,
That a sum, not exceeding £178,900, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, for Expenditure in respect of the Royal Parks and Pleasure Grounds.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution.

Mr. HOGGE: Before we agree to this Report stage, there are one or two items about which, I think, my right hon. Friend might give the House some information. The Estimate is divided into two parts. Certain details are referred to which occur in other Estimates connected with this service which relate to many other large public parks. As a matter of fact, these public parks have been used for certain war purposes and many of them, including some of the largest and most beautiful parks in London, are at the present moment studded with buildings set up for the purposes of war. None of us can complain about that, but I should be very much obliged if my right hon. Friend could give us some information as to when
those public parks are to be again freed for the pleasure of the public, whether these rather utilitarian hideous buildings are to be removed, and whether there is any possibility of that being done in the near future. For example, in particular, there is an expenditure here of nearly £50,000 with regard to one of the principal parks, namely, St. James' Park, which, after all, is right in the heart of London, and one of the most delightful parts of London. We should also be very glad to know what my right hon. Friend has to say with regard to the policy of the demolition of these buildings, what staff remains, and how soon the public may have access to these open spaces to which they were accustomed prior to the War?

Sir D. MACLEAN: There is another suggestion I would make. I hope, in view of the demobilisation of the parks—if I may so term it—that the Department is moving upon those lines which one would expect from my right hon. Friend with his very large business experience—laying plans as to how the material, no longer used for the specific purposes, is going to be disposed of, and what prospect he thinks there is for the proposals, which I am sure he will set up to get the full market price for the nation, for the disposal of the very large amount of material which must be set free. On the general question of freeing the parks as soon as possible, it is obvious this year is what we hope will be the peace year, and a very large number of visitors, far in excess of ordinary times, will come to London. It is therefore of exceptional importance that our public parks should be as free as possible from these buildings, which we hope are no longer necessary for after-war purposes. Take, for instance, the disfiguration of St. James' Park particularly. The Ministry of Shipping is still there. We have heard that the Department of the Ministry of Shipping is already in process of being dispersed. Take that as a concrete example. What steps, if any, has my right hon. Friend taken with regard to the disposal of all the material which is there?

The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Sir Alfred Mond): The question put by my hon. Friend is an important one, but, unfortunately, I have very little to say on the subject. As my hon. Friend knows very well, the question of dealing with accommodation is one of the most difficult questions at the present time. It is difficult to contemplate at the present
moment a period for dealing with temporary buildings in the park. What I have done at present is, as far as possible, to endeavour to induce the military authorities to clear out their now no longer needed works from the park, and to free Kensington Gardens of the camouflage school, so that I hope, shortly, to restore it to its pristine beauty. Then, in Richmond Park, where there has been a great deal of military operations, I am in communication with the War Office, and also regarding Regent's Park, which is largely occupied by the Army Post Office and Aeroplane Department. But even at the present moment we are so pressed for accommodation that I have been reluctantly compelled to erect more huts in Richmond Park. If it will give my hon. Friend some comfort, I will say this: we are working at, and have in hand, schemes to enable us, I hope in reasonable time, to clear out a number of these large staffs from Central London to the periphery, and, as schemes mature, I hope to get the Departments housed; but I really cannot give any date, and I am afraid it would be useless to expect this year any substantial progress to be made with these buildings. Although it is true that the Shipping Department is to be dispersed, this House has been creating a very large new Department—the Ways and Communications Department

Sir D. MACLEAN: Only one.

Sir A. MOND: If it were only one, it would be easier, but we are also creating other Departments which have no permanent homes and have to be accommodated somewhere. The question of material does not really come up. It is a question whether I have to deal with it or whether it will be a matter for the Ministry of Supply, but, from analogy, I should Bay that that authority will have to deal with the question when it arises.

Question put, and agreed to.

STATEMENT OF RATES BILL.

As amended (in the Standing Committed), considered; read the third time, and passed.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

Adjourned at Twelve minutes after Five o'clock